When you mean bullshit, do you mean that they are inaccurate or a terrible portrayal of that story.
Yes, 'Gladiator' has a fair share of inaccuracies but does that stop it from being a great movie? I presume the OP meant fictional feature films rather than documentaries...different standards and purposes apply.
If you want an accurate portrayal of true events then you should watch Compliance. A prank caller convinces a fast food restaurant manager and others to do terrible things to an innocent young employee.
It's uncomfortable viewing and a lot of people have commented on it saying that they can't believe they did those things, but there is CCTV footage of the actual incident which shows they did.
But The Iron Lady
Personally didn't think the scenes with her in the present day suffering from dimentia and talking to her dead husband was needed at all. If anything it was inappropriate and not even proven true that she did those things.
Chariots Of Fire. Quite an inspirational film till you find out most of it seems to have been made up. They even changed one of the main character's wife's name for some bizarre reason. I never understood why they named it after the lyrics in an English patriotic hymn, when the christian athlete wasn't English and the English athlete wasn't christian.
Much of the 'Titanic' story is about historical dispute, particularly in relation to the set of factors that led to its sinking, so it would be difficult to be 'accurate' when there have been competing testimonies. The movie is about the legend of the 'Titanic''s fate which is a different story anyway.
Much of the 'Titanic' story is about historical dispute, particularly in relation to the set of factors that led to its sinking, so it would be difficult to be 'accurate' when there have been competing testimonies. The movie is about the legend of the 'Titanic''s fate which is a different story anyway.
The most obvious one is all the famous paintings shown being on board, if they had been they would be at the bottom of the Atlantic now rather than in art galleries and museums today.
The most obvious one is all the famous paintings shown being on board, if they had been they would be at the bottom of the Atlantic now rather than in art galleries and museums today.
As I tried to explain elsewhere that scene was a device or a visual joke played on the viewer. Cameron was saying this is not the historical story of the Titanic but that this is an attempt to understand the real human drama of the event.
Another mechanism Cameron uses is the underwater viewing of the wreck which creates a sense of detachment from the human reality of the tragedy which the main story attempts to deal with.
Dallas Buyers Club is a great film, but the fact that one of the biggest roles in it is a person that never existed lets its 'true story' tagline down a bit.
Zulu, there was a fair bit of creative licence, the family of Private Hook were particularly upset at his portrayal. In the film he was a boozing, malingering trouble-maker - in real life he was a tee-total and had a very good reputation.
I think you are missing the point - in your own thread you said 'based on a true story', and that very phrase indicates that it is therefor NOT the actual true story, but a film that is only BASED on the events of the true story.
There never has been, and probably will never be a film that is a 100% accurate portrayal of true events.
Similarly you may see the phrase 'Adapted from', or 'Inspired by' at the beginning of a movie, means the same thing.
And by definition it's impossible to make such a movie...I would say largely because it would be very unlikely to entertain, which is the primary purpose of all movies.
There are occasional exceptions, such as documentaries or dramatized documentaries but even these cannot claim 100% accuracy.
The important point here is that a movie is NOT telling you 'This is what actually happened' at all. And nor should you expect it to.
I'm just still astonished that anyone expects any sort of accuracy from a movie whatsoever, and more so when they act surprised that something has been changed, when they are told at the beginning of the movie (based on etc) that it clearly is not going to be an accurate portrayal of the events.
I also find it quite sad that this subject comes up fairly regularly, and the same films get trotted out as examples time and time again, as if some people think this is some sort of revelation...
I think you are missing the point - in your own thread you said 'based on a true story', and that very phrase indicates that it is therefor NOT the actual true story, but a film that is only BASED on the events of the true story.
There never has been, and probably will never be a film that is a 100% accurate portrayal of true events.
Similarly you may see the phrase 'Adapted from', or 'Inspired by' at the beginning of a movie, means the same thing.
And by definition it's impossible to make such a movie...I would say largely because it would be very unlikely to entertain, which is the primary purpose of all movies.
There are occasional exceptions, such as documentaries or dramatized documentaries but even these cannot claim 100% accuracy.
The important point here is that a movie is NOT telling you 'This is what actually happened' at all. And nor should you expect it to.
I'm just still astonished that anyone expects any sort of accuracy from a movie whatsoever, and more so when they act surprised that something has been changed, when they are told at the beginning of the movie (based on etc) that it clearly is not going to be an accurate portrayal of the events.
I also find it quite sad that this subject comes up fairly regularly, and the same films get trotted out as examples time and time again, as if some people think this is some sort of revelation...
Spot on.
Based, inspired, adapted etc...the film-maker's are under no obligation to show 100% fidelity to their source material. In the bigger scheme of things, their own creative license is far more important.
I'm just still astonished that anyone expects any sort of accuracy from a movie whatsoever.
And yet roughly 80% of people's general education after school comes from films and TV including documentaries, factual programmes and such. That's usually how misconceptions about every subject under the sun continue to develop and thrive.
Most Waterloo films, for instance, portray Napoleon as a short guy, usually at around 5" tall, but in real life, he was 5' 7". Another example: virtually everyone believes deaf people are completely deaf and mute, thanks to films and TV. In real life, most deaf people aren't completely deaf, and a person who has two separate disabilities (deafness and mutism) at same time is rarer than a Ghost Orchid.
Based, inspired, adapted etc...the film-maker's are under no obligation to show 100% fidelity to their source material. In the bigger scheme of things, their own creative license is far more important.
The question of course then becomes, why is it important that film-makers are given that latitude?
And yet roughly 80% of people's general education after school comes from films and TV including documentaries, factual programmes and such. That's usually how misconceptions about every subject under the sun continue to develop and thrive.
Of course, many issues are contentious and not open to one version of the truth...for example, irrespective of his height was Napoleon one of the greatest generals in military history or not?
Comments
Yes, 'Gladiator' has a fair share of inaccuracies but does that stop it from being a great movie? I presume the OP meant fictional feature films rather than documentaries...different standards and purposes apply.
It's uncomfortable viewing and a lot of people have commented on it saying that they can't believe they did those things, but there is CCTV footage of the actual incident which shows they did.
I liked Braveheart as a film but yes it was historically inaccurate in SO MANY ways
But The Iron Lady
Personally didn't think the scenes with her in the present day suffering from dimentia and talking to her dead husband was needed at all. If anything it was inappropriate and not even proven true that she did those things.
Regards
Mark
Much of the 'Titanic' story is about historical dispute, particularly in relation to the set of factors that led to its sinking, so it would be difficult to be 'accurate' when there have been competing testimonies. The movie is about the legend of the 'Titanic''s fate which is a different story anyway.
The most obvious one is all the famous paintings shown being on board, if they had been they would be at the bottom of the Atlantic now rather than in art galleries and museums today.
As I tried to explain elsewhere that scene was a device or a visual joke played on the viewer. Cameron was saying this is not the historical story of the Titanic but that this is an attempt to understand the real human drama of the event.
Another mechanism Cameron uses is the underwater viewing of the wreck which creates a sense of detachment from the human reality of the tragedy which the main story attempts to deal with.
Titanic is a brilliant movie in so many ways.
I know it's an amalgam of characters and events, but they take some diabolical liberties just to have a cheap pop at the Brits.
Try Titanic - The Animated Movie, where everyone survives!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UI0stm7ZMqk
There never has been, and probably will never be a film that is a 100% accurate portrayal of true events.
Similarly you may see the phrase 'Adapted from', or 'Inspired by' at the beginning of a movie, means the same thing.
And by definition it's impossible to make such a movie...I would say largely because it would be very unlikely to entertain, which is the primary purpose of all movies.
There are occasional exceptions, such as documentaries or dramatized documentaries but even these cannot claim 100% accuracy.
The important point here is that a movie is NOT telling you 'This is what actually happened' at all. And nor should you expect it to.
I'm just still astonished that anyone expects any sort of accuracy from a movie whatsoever, and more so when they act surprised that something has been changed, when they are told at the beginning of the movie (based on etc) that it clearly is not going to be an accurate portrayal of the events.
I also find it quite sad that this subject comes up fairly regularly, and the same films get trotted out as examples time and time again, as if some people think this is some sort of revelation...
Based, inspired, adapted etc...the film-maker's are under no obligation to show 100% fidelity to their source material. In the bigger scheme of things, their own creative license is far more important.
And yet roughly 80% of people's general education after school comes from films and TV including documentaries, factual programmes and such. That's usually how misconceptions about every subject under the sun continue to develop and thrive.
Most Waterloo films, for instance, portray Napoleon as a short guy, usually at around 5" tall, but in real life, he was 5' 7". Another example: virtually everyone believes deaf people are completely deaf and mute, thanks to films and TV. In real life, most deaf people aren't completely deaf, and a person who has two separate disabilities (deafness and mutism) at same time is rarer than a Ghost Orchid.
Such is life.
The question of course then becomes, why is it important that film-makers are given that latitude?
Of course, many issues are contentious and not open to one version of the truth...for example, irrespective of his height was Napoleon one of the greatest generals in military history or not?
Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone?
Culture is a place where different views of an event or issue can be contested.
Whilst movies have entertainment and/or educational value, there are primarily the sites of contested meaning.