Will Hollywood ever get in trouble for "based on a real story" movies

[blonde_devil]

It is now award season and there was a bit of talk that The Butler wasn't nominated for any awards at the Golden Globes despite all the praise it got and that it is a true story. I looked into it a bit and found out that this "true story" they tell isn't exactly true - yeah, there was a black butler that worked under all those presidents but that's about when it ends. A majority of the story does not follow his life and is made up.

That got me thinking a little - obviously some movies are fictionalized a little for one reason or another but there are some that are pretty much works of fiction. I heard someone in the States was trying to sue a movie studio claiming the trailer for a movie made it seem like one thing when the movies was totally different - she said it was false advertising. Do you think we are going to see more of this happening, especially with things advertised as "true stories" when they clearly are not? If I sold you a pill claiming it would make you lose weight and it didn't, you don't just shrug your shoulders and go "oh well". Look at that guy on Oprah where he claimed the book was his life story and it turned out he made it up - didn't exactly get away with it. Should movies be any different? It is one thing if it isn't mentioned or is part of the credits - "Inspired by/Based on" - but so many movies use it as a part of their promotion that it really is misleading the audience.

[Ernest Rister]

Anyone looking for history in a movie is looking in the wrong place. Movies are great entertainments, but almost always very bad history.

[swmwithsharks]

"Based on" is not "The same as"

[Talzin78]

Oooh can we talk about Fargo now.

Coehn Bro: We made it all up.
William H. Macy: No It says based on actual events, you can't say that.
Coehn Bro: Why not? Its a movie.

[stvn1974]

To this day there are people who still claim that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre really happened. People be dumb.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

I heard someone in the States was trying to sue a movie studio claiming the trailer for a movie made it seem like one thing when the movies was totally different - she said it was false advertising.

Yes, that case - Idiot v Warner et al - actually made it all the way to the Supreme Court here.

In one of the shortest majority opinions on record Chief Justice John Roberts wrote 'What are you, ****ing stupid? It's a movie. How did we even get this piece of shit case? Get the **** out of here'.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by swmwithsharks

"Based on" is not "The same as"

/thread

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

To this day there are people who still claim that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre really happened. People be dumb.

Tobe Hooper's inspiration was the real life serial killer Ed Gein, who was also the inspiration for Psycho, Silence of the Lambs and Deranged (which stuck relatively closely to the real case compared to the others). So while it didn't really happen just like that, a real serial killer who wore people's skin fired up film-makers and writers imaginations quite a few times.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

To this day there are people who still claim that The Texas Chainsaw Massacre really happened. People be dumb.

Yeah - still the funniest thing ever other than Faces of Death being 100% real

[SlayersCouncil]

8 Famous Movies That Are Saved by Historical Inaccuracies - YouTube

[blonde_devil]

Okay, inspired by some event is one thing. They hear of something, think it might make an intersting movie and decide to make it. Nightmare of Elm Street is a great example of that. But too often you hear "the inspiring true story". I get that they are entertainment and not to be taken too seriously but at what point it is simply lying? Why can't movies be used to educate and show history as well as entertain? Showing Apollo 13 in a science class isn't exactly a bad thing.

[Ernest Rister]

at what point it is simply lying?

When the movie actually claims what you're seeing IS true, versus BASED ON a true story.

Dishonest documentaries that use convenient edits and selective facts can be accused of lying. As for movies, I'm not sure people really think a real-life Jack and Rose were running all over the Titanic in the final hours of the great ship, or that William Wallace made the future Queen of England swoon, or that Walt Disney flew over the Atlantic to have a personal talk with P.L. Travers about their respective father issues.

[Agent Bond]

I am not so much upset about authenticity, as every "true" story made in Hollywood has timelines changes, events altered, and additions to the plot to make it more interesting and palatable to the audience (and to make more money of course).

Most lifes tories, no matter how interesting, can be improved by a screenwriter in some way, and in Hollywood, that's exactly what almost always happens. No problems there really. For me anyway.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

at what point it is simply lying?

When the movie actually claims what you're seeing IS true, versus BASED ON a true story.

But isn't that what the "based on" line is saying? That what you are seeing is true? If someone says "9 out of 10 people belive this based on our research", that research should show that 9 out of 10 are saying that, not 5. With "inspired by" I can somewhat agree with you - we liked the story but we made some changes. Inspired indicates that it isn't true but something happened. But with "based on" you expect at least the key parts to be true yet several movies are using that line and then fabricating a whole new story. It isn't really a big deal but I find it very annoying as it is misleading.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

Inspired indicates that it isn't true but something happened. But with "based on" you expect at least the key parts to be true yet several movies are using that line and then fabricating a whole new story. It isn't really a big deal but I find it very annoying as it is misleading.

"Inspired by" showed up in a lot of TV-movies, when they read a true-crime headline and pretty much made up the entire Law & Order episode from scratch. (With different characters.)

"Based on" means you're recognizing that something sorta like this happened, so it's not like you made crap 100% up, after all. It's not regulated to be paying any royalties to the real-life character, any more than Ed Gein "really" looked like Leatherface or Tony Perkins, or Ed Wood "really" met Orson Welles.
It's sort of like the equivalent of those products that advertise "Whole Grain!" just for using a little bit of whole-wheat flour, which technically doesn't count...But it makes good advertising if you believe it.

(I remember renting "Alien Autopsy", a comedy that was purportedly "based on" the story of the hilariously faked "Roswell autopsy" film....And got an inane, painfully Edgar Wright-wannabe Britcom about two lovable losers who have to fake the film in their mum's apartment to get out of trouble with gangsters. Uh, that wasn't what actually happened. But, like most based-on's, somethng...sorta like it did! )

[csdot]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

Tobe Hooper's inspiration was the real life serial killer Ed Gein, who was also the inspiration for Psycho, Silence of the Lambs and Deranged (which stuck relatively closely to the real case compared to the others). So while it didn't really happen just like that, a real serial killer who wore people's skin fired up film-makers and writers imaginations quite a few times.

Gein wasn't really a serial killer. He killed 2 people a few years apart. He didn't have a family of psychos and never killed a random group of teens. Psycho was pretty close to the real story but TCM bears no resemblance at all aside from the skin mask.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by EricJ

"Inspired by" showed up in a lot of TV-movies, when they read a true-crime headline and pretty much made up the entire Law & Order episode from scratch. (With different characters.)

"Based on" means you're recognizing that something sorta like this happened, so it's not like you made crap 100% up, after all. It's not regulated to be paying any royalties to the real-life character, any more than Ed Gein "really" looked like Leatherface or Tony Perkins, or Ed Wood "really" met Orson Welles.
It's sort of like the equivalent of those products that advertise "Whole Grain!" just for using a little bit of whole-wheat flour, which technically doesn't count...But it makes good advertising if you believe it.

(I remember renting "Alien Autopsy", a comedy that was purportedly "based on" the story of the hilariously faked "Roswell autopsy" film....And got an inane, painfully Edgar Wright-wannabe Britcom about two lovable losers who have to fake the film in their mum's apartment to get out of trouble with gangsters. Uh, that wasn't what actually happened. But, like most based-on's, somethng...sorta like it did! )

yeah, I guess if there is no regulation then they can do pretty much wahtever they want. I imagine that is the point of advertising - how much can you get away with and not technically be lying. I mean, potato chips advertise they are a source of vitamins, how many thing advertise no transfats when there never were any there to begin with, etc. I find it annoying because people like to use these movies to prove a point and it creates problems as they believe what the movie says and you have to fight to show them what really happened.

[animefan77]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

I heard someone in the States was trying to sue a movie studio claiming the trailer for a movie made it seem like one thing when the movies was totally different - she said it was false advertising.

I remember that case. Totally ridiculous and doesn't relate to your post.
It was some *#&@% woman seeing the movie "Drive" (which is awesome btw) and got upset because there wasn't enough "driving" in the movie Nothing was "based/inspired" by true events in this case.

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

obviously some movies are fictionalized a little for one reason .

you should say "EVERY" movies.
Not even so called documentaries will tell all sides of the story. Movies always dramatizes event to make it seem more interesting.

case in point:
Captain Philips

[Show spoiler]They dramatized a lot. captain Philips was not that heroic. He didn't order or lock the doors to the boat, he didn't go below deck to show the pirates around, and he certainly didn't volunteer to get taken with that heroic speech in the trailer saying that he has to take them off the ship. Actually lot of the crewman sue the company citing incompetence shown from the captain. But he definitely did get taken hostage, experienced lot of hardship and survived.

And just too many others to list.(say every based on true movies) But most of the times, it's fun to do some research and find out what have been dramatized, etc. Some are surprisingly close to what happened (Rush).

Check this site out. This is a fun site that I found only recently. Cool read.

http://www.historyvshollywood.com/

[Foggy]

You really don't like Captain Phillips do you?

[toddly6666]

The real Forest Gump never told President John F Kennedy that he had to pee.