We've all seen movies start with a phrase like "Based on a True Story" or "Inspired by True Events", but what exactly does that mean? Films like Bohemian Rhapsody, Oppenheimer, Elvis, and countless others use this phrase to trick audiences into thinking the story they are seeing is true. But often times these "Based on a True Story" movies are using the truth as a blueprint to tell their story. When is it ok to bend the truth in order to tell an exciting story?
#oppenheimer #elvis #basedontruestory #nerdstalgic
Sources -
www.sportskeeda.com/nfl/news-...
faroutmagazine.co.uk/inaccura...
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ri...
www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/...
Instead of being called ‘based on a true story’ Why can’t they be called historical fiction? That seem to be a more appropriate name?
Not as many people will read/watch something admitting it's basically fan fiction of something that really happened. Unless like in the case of Harry Turtledove the fiction is blatantly fantastical.
Because it's not really historical fiction. That would be a completely fictional story using history as it's backdrop. Saving Private Ryan and Gladiator are examples of Historical fiction, Biopics are specifically aimed at telling the story of a real person, and the general timeline of events are true, if not the specifics.
"historical fiction" Because that would be our current history. The victors write history and we do not know how much of our current history is just Anglo fiction.
“Based on a true story” draws more consumers aka more money
No its not
Biopics are going to embellish the truth from time to time for entertainment. That's why we have documentaries.
Documentaries are full of shit too
You can embellish documentaries too people can lie about their backstory or hide stories
I literally thought of Tiger King as an example of a documentary embellishing the truth.
That's true, I know some relatives who don't like "The Crown", because they embellish certain details. They'd be better off watching a factual documentary on the Royals.
Documentaries are just as bad because people think they know all the facts after watching them, but they’re always told from a certain point of view, and critical facts are always withheld.
“Based on a true story” is the equivalent of “Sugar-Free” in soft drinks
Not really
I don’t quite understand your logic here. This video just taught us that “Based on a true story” is not always true but that the statement increase viewer interest and revenue generation from the movie. Some soft drinks truly are “Sugar-Free”. Am I missing something?
That's different, "Based on a true story" would still have elements of the truth but modified to entertain people "Sugar-Free" is when companies use artificial sugar or natural sugar from actual fruits in their drinks instead of extracted/processed sugar like corn syrup, cane sugar, brown sugar, etc
This entire video and no mention that Cocaine Bear starts with the words "Based on true events"
It did show a clip from Cocaine Bear though
I mean, tbf it WAS based off of the actual cocaine bear in Kentucky, though that story was way less eventful
As a history nerd who read American Prometheus, I will say that Oppenheimer seemed to be pretty darn accurate. Some things were simplified or condensed, but besides the poison apple story (which is more ambiguous in real life) and the awkward scene where Nolan decided to put "I am become death" the first time, there wasn't anything that felt really far off. There's a lot of literature on Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project I haven't read, but at the very least it was clear Nolan cared about historical accuracy.
I was amazed at how many times I checked Wikipedia, and outside of relocation of exactly who was where and when, generally speaking it gets all the important stuff correct. Did Neils Bohr almost eat a poisoned apple with Oppenheimer deftly snatching it away? No, of course not, but he did legitimately try to poison his TA. Neils also did get smuggled out of Europe in a bomber bay. In a 3 hour movie with very little fat to trim, you have to use artistic license, but also it was a time where there was enough real life drama that you really don't have to do much to write a compelling story with the subject matter even if you are confined to historical accuracy.
@bengurwell1500 yes Wikipedia known for their accuracy and commitment to get the facts right everytime.
@@Mr.StevenKerr Some studies say Wikipedia is nearly as accurate as Brittanica
Best part about reading American Prometheus beforehand was knowing the deeper context to some of the moments in the film. Like when Strauss let's Oppie take his car after the charges are presented to him.
@@Mr.StevenKerr let's just ignore the entire section of sources at the bottom of every page
Bohemian Rhapsody erased Freddie's bisexuality by basically hinting at it and then trying to discredit it entirely, completely going against Freddie's experiences with both genders. And it was in the hundreds for each.
That whole movie felt like a hit job against Freddie to me. Along with erasing his bisexuality, they portrayed him as this out-of-control party animal, ignoring the fact that the rest of the band absolutely took part in lots of the "festivities." Then the whole situation with Freddie doing a solo album and Roger accusing him of killing Queen, when Roger was the first member of the band to make a solo album just years before was really infuriating.
@@RoxanneJ81 To be fair, Freddie was the sluttiest of them all. The most inaccurate part of the story portrayed by the media when he died is when they claim it's because he slept with men. Everybody knows that those who participate in hookup culture are more at risk of catching STDs than those who don't do that. Because of how homophobic they were back then, they had to cause fear mongering and make it seem as though it was because he didn't sleep with women that he died, but in reality, it was because he slept with hundreds of men and hundreds of women. His body count was in the hundreds, if not thousands, and this has been said by Freddie and some of his band mates, so it is not mere speculation, it is the truth. He even says it in the song "Don't Stop Me Now"
This change didn't even make sense in the context of the story. We see that Freddy and Mary love eachother but have different priorities. She wants to get married and have a normal life. He wants to party like a rockstar. If they stayed together, he would cheat on her and maybe even give her AIDS. They don't need to manufacture homosexuality for them to break up.
@@RoxanneJ81 It was really jarring too. They went from Freddie firing their manager for even daring to suggest a solo career, then like 3 scenes later he suggest the band break up. Like they gave him no credible motive for it at all
It was more on the nose than that. There's literally a scene where Freddy says "I think I might be bisexual" and another character responds "ugh, you're GAY Freddy!" and he's just like "oh ok😢"
The one thing i do love about "based on a true story" is that it gets me researching the actual story! Like Chernobyl was a great series and it was great learning the facts, seeing those horrors visually on TV really helped in a horrible way to how history played out.
In terms of biopic, the last one I liked (before Oppenheimer) was Rocketman. There were many scenes in the movie that were not 'based on' Elton John's life, but the movie stuck with its style and made something very unique and entertaining.
The thing that bothered me the most about the movie is at thend of the movie when they're singing I'm Still Standing and he interacts with his younger self. Ugh! I know the trailers say its based on a real life fantasy. But still fuck that scene even if it is brief.
I wasn’t shocked that Bohemian Rhapsody won best editing at the Oscars because it managed to completely cut out the real Freddie Mercury
The Last Samurai is a pretty bad example of a "White Saviour" narrative given, well, the film's plot.
Yeah, while I understand where the point comes from (largely the movie poster), it has always bothered me that that movie doesn't really adhere to that trope at all despite always being this "go-to example."
It's like when people talk about the manic pixie dream girl and then cite a movie where the female character is just cool and not crazy lol
@@cloudkitt agreed. The other example that I hear a lot is Dances With Wolves. I'm scratching my head thinking, "did you actually watch the movie?"
Tell me you didn't watch the movie without telling me you didn't watch the movie:
The marketing was unfortunate, because it made it seem like Tom Cruise was meant to be the titular Last Samurai. But if you actually watch the movie, you see that the white man did not save anyone. He learned to appreciate the samurai culture and then they made the decision to fight and they all died. Like, that's a significant thing that happened - nobody got saved, least of all by Tom Cruise. As far as I know, the issue some Japanese people had with the movie is that it depicted the samurai in too positive a light, rather than the POV character being white.
Bohemian Rhapsody took the approach of 'I lied because I could' and frankly it was weird. I know Queen's discography in chronological order and hearing Fat Bottomed Girls being performed before Bohemian Rhaposdy was released is pretty weird along with Queen breaking up for real so everyone could go solo only for Live Aid to rejuvinate the love of the band itself for its members after finding out Freddie had AIDS. Aspects and elements of the story were true, but completely presented in a jumbled up mess for false inspiration. Knowing the entire story of Live Aid, Geldof was FAR too busy to give a shit about one band being there or not. Honestly, depicting Geldof's actual methods of getting Queen there would have been more entertaining and memorable. Ah well, Freddie did say that the others could use his music just as long as they didn't make him boring.
Crazy that Brian May and Roger Taylor were a part of the team that brought that film together and allowed Freddie Mercury to be portrayed as a jack ass for going solo, when he wasn't the only one. They made him seem like a rude dude.
@@Carloszavalalolhe wasn't even the first - Roger Taylor has a solo album out in 1981. But then the rest of Queen were portrayed as just sort of 'along for the ride'
Same. Here.
And they wrote "We Will Rock You" in 1980, according to the movie… 😁 (the song was released in 1977)
To be fair, I think the purpose of the film was really just to market Queen to a younger generation and continue to keep them as a part of popular culture. Also, if they had made a completely accurate portrayal of Freddie's life, it would probably be banned in half of the world, and make Wolf of Wall Street look tame in comparison!
With Rocketman at least it was rather explicit that they were playing up many aspects or creating falsities for the sake of drama and storytelling.
Hacksaw Ridge was a rarity, though, but not in the way you think. Desmond Doss (RIP) was much more awesome IRL than he was presented in the movie.
Still a great a movie. I lose it when he’s praying on the mountain
They had to nerf him in the movie, because he did too many incredible things and they thought people wouldn't believe it. 😭
Gotta say, I fail to see how The Last Samurai is a white savior trope. He brings absolutely nothing to the Samurai. He doesn't show them how to craft rifles or introduce tactical knowlege to Katsumoto like he isn't a notoriously brilliant tactician already. I saw the film as Cruise's character being saved by the Samurai culture and community. He was suicidal and alone with no sense of community, haunted by massacres that he was ordered to carry out, his sould condemned to torment. In the film, he finds purpose and something good to fight for to allow him a sense of personal redemption. He regains his honor, thanks to the Samurai. Whether he was there or not really wouldn't have affected their outcome. Is it a bit cheesey and Hollywood? Sure, but that's why they literally made up the main character, it's inspired by real life. Similar to Dances with Wolves, where Dunbar is saved in a sense by the natives, they saved him from the troops and in turn he helped them by creating a decoy trail to draw the cavalry off their path at the end of the film. Hardly the white man descending from the heavens to show the savages a better way. I hate the overuse of these tropes because I feel it makes it hard for people who want to be socially conscious to properly enjoy really beautiful stories of cultures coming together.
Thank you, I was thinking the same. The Last Samurai is one of my favorite movies, ever. The white savior trope, just like the magical negro trope, are just created to sow division in all of us.
❤Precisely well said and well OBSERVED.
@@Sandman2007 The White Saviour trope is very real, just doesn't apply to The Last Samurai
@Vivi_9 well I think it's an excuse by miserable people who overanalyze a movie.
I 100% agree, it actually pisses me off a bit when people say the last samurai is just a white saviour trope movie, just proves they either didn't watch the movie or don't understand the concept.
This is insane, because I was literally talking about this yesterday. I was saying how Based on a True Story just means there was a real event and they took inspiration to make a fictional version of it. Some try to stay close to the original events, most... Not so much.
❤exactly
I don't know, a lot of Walk Hard actually happened. Dewey Cox is one of my favorite artists. Dodgeball also inspired me to not let my dreams be dreams
a true underdog story
Most people don’t give Cox the credit he deserves, without his work, the music industry wouldn’t be what it is today.
Don't forget Galaxy Quest! By Grabthar's hammer, those historical documents inspired me to never give up, and never surrender!
Don't you do it, Dewey Cox!
Great videos. We should not forget that biopics are movies before anything else, so ignore reality when necessary. The mind-blowing thing is that documentaries are movies too, and they carry their director's viewpoint and agenda. Some documentaries (most of Netflix ones for example) are awful if you watch them to learn things
❤Precisely
I hate how people watch The Social Network and think this is exactly how everything played out and that’s how Zuckerberg acts. But at the same time if they hadn’t done this they wouldn’t have made one of the best films of this century.
The century? A bit hyperbolic no?
They basically turned zuck into Eisenberg
@@mbogucki1everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't agree with it either. They aren't wrong. It's just their opinion.
@@nabbunsechkieWell that makes no sense because this century just started
@@austinhernandez2716 It's hyperbole, man. Relax lol
Easily my favorite moment of taking liberty with true events was in The Big Short when one of the characters breaks the fourth wall and tells us the viewer that scene didn’t actually happen that way IRL. Similarly, but on the flip side, there’s a scene that seems outrageous and the fourth wall is broken again in which we are told “this DID actually occur this way!” Such a great film.
I think this is why Quentin Tarantino told his own alternate version of history in movies like Inglourious basterds, OUATIH. I believe he also dislikes biographical movies, since he feels they are oscar baits by actors, if I'm not wrong
Funny how the latter film you mentioned was nominated for Best Picture
Reminds me of a meme when Hamilton came out: “Don’t believe everything you see in Hamilton. Some of these dance numbers did not actually happen.”
-"William Wallace is 7 feet tall." -"Yes, I've heard. Kills men by the hundreds, and if he were here he'd consume the English with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse." The irony of the film "Braveheart" commenting on the inaccuracies of legendary stories.
Never let facts get in the way of a good story
Exactly
The Biden Family motto!
🔖I think inaccurate biopics are hurting the industry. When I watch a biopic, all I can think of is "Did this really happen? Did that really happen? I'll check on Wikipedia later". That's not the reaction you want from your audience. The doubt creeping in my mind prevents me from being fully invested. I have no problem with slight artistic license, but some "biopics" out there are closer to fairy tales than real life..
Freddie mercury in the movie was a wimp. Freddie in real life was strong.
Rami Malik was 10 years too young, 6" too short, and 20 lbs. too light to be Freddie Mercury
Movies in general give people the wrong idea of how things work, let alone what "based on true events" seems to wrongly convey to the audience. Like having to wait 24 hours (or is it 48?) before reporting someone as missing. Works as a plot device to tell a harrowing story, but when people take it at face value, they risk other people's lives. I haven't seen pearl harbor, but have heard about the real life events that lead to it and it seems like the movie only serves to reinforce bigotry and doesn't do reality any kind of justice
I don't think it reinforces bigotry.
Who cares, it’s entertainment. It’s art. Go watch a documentary.
@@thischannelisdeleted Apparently you do since you had to make a comment about it
@@Sandman2007 The fact that it does, isn't dependent on your belief in it
@Punmaster9001 fine. Tell me how the movie does that.
If someone told you a true story about going to the store to get milk, and from that you made a movie where a guy goes to the store to buy milk, where he beats up a gang of supervillains, then you could technically say it was based on a true story.
I really appreciated the amount of airtime you gave to telling other people's stories, and drilling down on a specific example. I thought you did a really thoughtful job of that
I'm glad you included footage from A Few Good Men here as I didn't learn this was based on a true story until recently. While there was no death in real life, one of the marines accused was found innocent and actually allowed to continue duty. After an honorable discharge he realized the plot to this movie was based on his story and proceeded to sue the studio for royalties. Before litigation could commence however, he disappeared from the face of the Earth. Approximately 9 months later he was found two miles into a wooded area with a bullet to the back of his head. The case remains unsolved to this day.
Oppenheimer and KOTFM don’t deserve to be discussed in the same vain as Based on a True Story movies that change meaningful historical details for the sake of the story.
Honestly just here to say thanks for the Brendan Fraser clips 😊😊😊 There can never be enough of them!
My two favorite "Based on a true story" films are "Gaby: A True Story"(1987) and"Your Cheatin' Heart"(1964)… the first one I had to look into because the main person "Gaby" isn't as well known as the second one based on true events about Hank Williams(Sr.)… The biggest problem with the Hank Williams biopic is that his ex-wife controlled most of the movie, forcing her son(Hank Williams Jr.) into singing his father's songs for the film, even though it was well known that the actor playing as Hank Williams was very capable of doing it himself!! As well as the fact that Ms. Audrey(Hank Williams' ex-wife) is said to make herself look worse then she actually was!! 😮😮 Plus other details that makes the movie less of a biopic and more of what your video is suggesting!!
I think the biggest flaw in this argument is that historians are also storytellers. We just accept more BS from Hollywood
we have issue determining how an event happened with multiple witnesses in a courtcase, never mind an event that took place before anyone here was born
The fact I have to argue with people that Japan was just as bad as germany in ww2 is laughable
Go ask the Chinese about that.
Or that the soviets were bad
@@anonymouswhite352 yeah even if people don’t like reading stuff you can just look up travel vlogs of some countries that where part of it and they still haven’t fully recovered
U571- A notorious example but one you don't hear about so much now
Oh yea! Bon Jovi's brief stint into acting. Haha. Of course, much was invented so that america could take the credit. Hahaha.
I enjoyed it.
Thankfully we have documentaries. Granted sometimes they are butchered depending on whos behind it. When it comes to "based on a true story" films I look at them always as "loosley based on". Dont take them that seriously. Sadly we have people who think because it says so on a film they fully buy into every aspext. Just as a whole media literacy is in the garbage. And thats a shame. Hell, not just media. But literature and everything in between.
❤agreed 100%
5:02 the weird Al movie was so good !
Good doesn't mean accurate… depending on the amount of control Weird Al Yankivic had, depends on his vision of telling his truth or The Truth… and as a viewer, it's up to you to care of what truth it's portraying is believed 😉😉🤔🤔
@@jescis0 All true, but in this case Al did have all the control, and was specifically making the story go off the rails as a pastiche after he was annoyed with the liberties that Bohemian Rhapsody took with Freddie Mercury's life.
@@cloudkitt makes sense, I probably would've done the same thing…
2:56 isn’t the whole plot of The Last Samurai about a white American who is saved by a traditional Japanese population rather than the other way around?
Yes, he has no idea what he is talking about there. History buffs video on it has a great take on it.
That’s how I felt about it. He got saved by the people who should’ve been his enemies and he learnt their culture, language (it’s a movie so obviously it’s being presented in a different way to how it would be as a book) and their way of fighting. He conformed to their way of life. At the end of the movie, he helped them, but it’s only after them doing everything to help him first.
Patrick H. Willems did a video on Music Biopics that covers this topic nicely. I've learned to appreciate the music biopics that don't follow the generic formula like Love and Mercy, or subvert the formula in unique ways like Weird, or find a unique way to tell the story that runs parallel with the formula like Rocketman. They don't just feel conventional, and are more compelling. If people want truth, they can watch a documentary, and even then there's sometimes a slight spin. Best to just read about someone's life in biographies if you're just looking for truth.
It's never slight. That's why you have to watch like five documentaries on the same subject, and extract the truth from the things they agree on. But otherwise, yes, agreed.
The difference between Bill and Ted and Pearl Harbor is one was INTENTIONALLY making a comedy. Bay is just a joke in and of himself. There. I said it.
I think the semi-fictionalization of real events can be helpful in that they may spur people to learn more, look up more about the topic, or even branch off into new topics they never thought much about. I definitely do not think anyone should approach these like true stories. Like, watching the movie Oppenheimer doesn't instantly mean you now are educated about that person or topic. If you want to know what really happened you are going to have to read, or watch an actual documentary.
I go into biopics to watch an entertained-based take on a personality or an event, not a 100% accurate breakdown. It's pretty much impossible to retell a story with absolute accuracy, especially when it involves someone's whole life or the event occured hundreds or even thousands of years ago. That's why I'm forgiving of historical inaccuracies most of the time. As long as I'm emotionally engaged or at least get curious about what happened, it's a winner. I only draw the line at stuff like Pain And Gain, which takes such gross liberties with the original story it's no longer entertainment or an interpretation, it's minimizing an actual victim's trauma and makes them out to be the villain in the story. That's deplorable. Thankfully most biopics don't go quite *that* far.
There's a distinction between a biopic (Oppenheimer) and a movie loosely inspired by true events (May December). While everybody understands that there are limitations to the medium of movies that requires filmmakers to make some compromises, biopics are held to higher standards because History is the main appeal. It isn't unreasonable to expect that a film called Napoleon is going to teach you about Napoleon Bonaparte, and it is predictable that people interested in history would want to see the film and be bothered if the film has many egregious inaccuracies. I'm currently reading Unruly, by David Mitchell. The book is about the various kings and queens of England's history. Mitchell is a comedian, so it is meant to be funny and contains a surprisingly long digression about the last James Bond movie. Still, I do expect the facts presented to be well researched and true, as far as the author can tell. The "it's for entertainment" excuse can only go so far.
I don’t understand the people who complain about movies not being historically accurate. Go watch a documentary, then. Movies are there to entertain and/or to provoke thought, not to give you a history lesson.
the last samurai is not a "white savior" film, he does not save the Samurai, they lose, they save him, its the opposite, he was a mess before being captured, and through them he found peace with his past, and found a future for himself within their culture.
The placing of the "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH" scene was perfect in this video
This especially applies to musicals based on historical figures and/or events, such as Hamilton and Evita. Like, they're good entertainment and can get people to learn more about history, but on they typically take much artistic license as biopics do, maybe a bit more so.
hold tf up, Hamilton isn't real?!
I always found the “based upon a true story” thing at the beginning of “Fargo” to be super weird, but when I think about it, maybe the point of it being there is to lampoon the very idea that this video is talking about. Perhaps the Coen brothers felt that audiences would find a bigger fascination with the film if they assigned truth to it, and then when they researched whether or not it happened and found out that it didn’t, the disappointment they would feel would be a lesson not to believe everything you hear. If that is the case, it’s honestly quite brilliant. And this is coming from someone who always holds out hope that movies based on true events will at least be factual to a high enough degree.
No I think you're looking too much into it. The Coen bros probably just wanted to cash in on people's fascination with real life events, so they decided to lie by using the whole "based on a true story" thing in Fargo. They just wanted to make more money 😂
@@princesmith8008 I guess it depends on whether or not they used it as a selling point or didn’t reveal it during marketing
@@BrendanPappas Oh they definitely knew what they were doing, and it paid off. People were so intrigued that some of them literally tried to find that buried briefcase from the movie lmao. I remember an interview in which the lead actress reveals that she questioned the directors on that particular decision.
@@princesmith8008 I’m glad people were more invested in the movie than I was 😂
@@BrendanPappas Yeah I'm sure those people aren't known for their critical thinking lol
I like how you did not include the Netflix Cleopatra Documentary :P
One of my favorites, almost based on a true story, is A League Of Their Own with Tom Hanks.
The worst one is Imitation Game. I did a rabbit hole on the true story one night and it just keeps unraveling. So first off, no one was against Alan making the computer because that's what they were there to do. They were there to make a better decrypting machine than the Polish one and then they made literally hundreds of them. In fact, they brought some Americans over to learn how they worked so the US made some too. Alan did write a letter to Churchhill asking for more funding because the machine was important, but Hugh and third person wrote it with him and all signed it. It wasn't a massive secret, like it was any regular military secret, but it wasnt secret within the military like the movie shows with them going over the navy commanders head to keep things secret from him. Joan worked on the project properly, not secretly under the table with Alan sneaking off to get her help, she was on the team, and there were actually a few women. John was a spy, and the British military did know, but he wasn't there the whole time, he moved somewhere else decently early on in the war The way they characterized Alan is all sorts of inaccurate. They went with the sociopathic genius because Cumberbatch could play it well with Sherlock but the others did get along with him and said he was funny. The Germans *did* figure out that the allies broke Enigma and changed the machine, which set them back again and they had to figure out what happened and change the machines accordingly Which ....I feel like there is a very good story in the real facts. I understand keeping the team the same through the war, but there's a really good story where they panic when everything stops working and they have to start over. You can still show a growing relationship between Alan and Hugh with them being competitive or disagreeing on methods at first without them being antagonistic. You can still show how important and vital Alan was without having him being the only one working on the project and everyone fighting him on it and you can show how smart and intelligent he was without making him a quirky asshole. There is a very good story in the real events that is still really good and movie-able with a few understandable changes but they went wayyyyy overboard and changed so many unnecessary things
What? 😮 the scene about the ship was a lie too?
The issue is the medium, cinema and the coaxing of the narrative being the truth by the media and the film personalities like the director, the actor, writers saying that's what happened and that's the truth, and that in turn makes the audience trust them. They are/were a figure of authority, respected and sometimes revered and when they, media and the film personalities, speak then they have a command over the audience and they can make us believe that it's the only truth. When they show pain or patriotism and someone questions the product, the movie, then the critisizer is called apathetic to the pain or suffering of those shown or they are unpatriotic.
Another interesting gray-area case: "Shirley". It looks and could be confused with a biopic about Shirley Jackson but it is mostly fictional and based on a novel. Lot's of details were change to serve to the story's idea of Jackson being an embittered and tormented female artist even though it doesn't really hold if you confront it with true biographies of her. Is it ethic to pull a flic which could be consumed as "based on true events" without clear clarification? Really I don't know.
I do feel as though if the indigenous people get mad at films made with their culture in it. Dont get disappointed at the person telling a story or making the film. Be disappointed at your people being involved in making the movie. It’s easy to point fingers but when a lot of your own kind is co operating and aiding the creation of a movie based on events to do with your culture. You can’t really get mad if your people are also joining in on the creation. It’s not like people are being held against their will. They’re willingly involved in something that isn’t correct historically. Just my opinion
Bravheart was my introduction in to Scottish history despite being completely inaccurate. I still love the movie.
Fairs. I do as well. Hahaha. It blew my mind when I was about 9-10 or something and I have had a soft spot for it ever since despite... as you say... it being completely inaccurate. Haha.
There's a great YT channel History Buffs which covers just how truthful many historical movies actually are, I'd highly recommend giving it a go. He has some pretty choice words to say about Braveheart 😆
Have you seen his video on the last samurai? Absolutely nails it with his analysis on that the movie is absolutely not a white saviour movie. So I don't get what nerdstalgic talks about here.
I second that recommendation. I can't wait for his video on Napoleon to come out!
More than anything it's kind of impossible to know the conversations that happened between any historical person and event even in a documentary, and remember history is always written by the victors so even history is completely misleading and should never be taken as %100 fact, and everything about history should be taken with a grain of salt.
The Godzilla Minus One movie can be given the "Based on True Events" label.
Two that come to mind are Moneyball and Ford V Ferrari. In Moneyball Art Howe was 6'4 200 pounds and in great shape. Seeing him played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman was disturbing. Howe and Beane got along, Beane never tried to tell Howe how to coach. Beane wanted to keep Howe but A's ownership would not pay him. Ford V Ferrarri, Leo Beebe was made the bad guy but he was very supportive of Shelby and the way he ran the team.
I feel like the “based on true events” genre is a coming full circle in a way. For centuries, this was how historical events and biographies were told: in dramatic, entertaining and very embellished ways
That's why I liked the American Hustle introduction. "Some of this actually happened."
This is why When ever I see a trailer for a biopic that's coming out. I'm aware that it's not going to be 100 percent true and lots of BS is made up. There are biopics that really are true and are great movies like Till a film about the death of Emmit Till and his mother's fight for justice for his death the director isn't Some big hot shot or well known filmmaker she's small yet very good at her job told a tragic yet touching story never sugar coating the scary too real details. Watch it if you can it's one of the best movies I've seen ever and gets me everytime it works as a biopic as well as a good movie.
I think a lot of true stories are embellished because life doesn’t follow a convenient three act structure. In a story there has to be conflict and resolution. In many cases real life either doesn’t have a conflict or doesn’t have a satisfying resolution. Never mind whether or not the B and C plots sinc up.
My issue with these films is that they often leave me feeling let down when I found out the truth. Because although I expect lots of bits to be fictionalised i still expect important major events to be realistic. So then later when you find out that even those parts didn't happen you realise that that person or that historical event just wasn't as incredible or impressive as you thought it was. It's disappointing.
I like that y’all chose to make us reflect on ourselves instead of pointing the finger at Hollywood or anything else
The problem is that this creates a situation in wich when a production is called out for lies and blatant inaccuracies they can say "is just a movie, people shouldn't believe it", when in reality they might be concious (and even hopeful) that people will believe it. The fact is that stories with long reach do educate people, and rewriting history can be an intensional action, with real life implications
Thank you. Apologists say you shouldn't get history from movies, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people do. I personally know some people that believed the "biopics" that they saw and I had to correct them. I'm willing to bet everyone here know people like that too.
you summed it up perfectly always doubt what you are seeing this type of movies, in my opinion should make you want to explore more about the real person behind it. the narrative always changes and it depends on the writers or the director. and also, you have to admit, its related a lot to marketing. if you market a film as an original story, or a story based on true events, you usually have to back it u with a well known star behind it to sell you on going to the film. for example, you can see the difference in revenue between the documentaries on Oppenheimer and the movie by Christopher nolan, when you put starts behind it and on the screen it makes a lot more money. and sometimes the real events weren't just as captivating as to what we are seeing on the screen.
There is a big difference between dramatic license and a writer/director including a falsehood knowingly because at that point they are taking advantage of their audience's ignorance on a particular subject. I think that a recent example of a movie nailing both entertainment and accuracy is 2019's Midway. I watched an entire series on the subject and from what I can tell, it's very accurate and it's incredibly entertaining so one does not have to be sacrificed for the other which is something that should be considered before these directors take up these real life events.
thanks for giving me this info, thats wild
After the intro montage I was afraid you were going to tell me The Princess Bride isn't true. Thank goodness!
There is a recent Norwegian tv series about the infighting in the labour party in the 70s and early 80s. Seeing as it is based on the word of the people involved, and they are straight up contradictory at times, they preface the series with: “Based on truth. Lies and poor recollection”
When it says based on a true story. I always play the guessing game of what is fact and fiction
Beginning of the next marvel movie: “the following is based on true events”
So on the basis of this topic, what do people think are the most true tales told via film or television? Interested to hear what people say
As is the Hollywood standard. Never let the truth (or the source material for that matter) get in the way of a good story. "Good" being the one that brings in the most money.
Because "Napoleon" from 2023 made a lot of money... Sure... Or basically any recent comic book movie that ignores the source material
@@EggFighterXB- What is good for mainstream media and actually good are two very different things. It's "good" for them if it's the "brave and stunning" kind.
@@blacklight1104 I'm talking about the part that, according to you, "brings the most money"
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. They made a fictitious story to see how Mr. Rogers can influence us.
"Shadowlands" about the British writer C. S. Eliot.
Weird is da best comedy of last few yrs
I like to think "inglorious dastards" is the best lol
My most favorite biopic to date and the most meta one i have seen yet is I, Tonya. The film flat out refuses to be accurate to anything regarding the actual truth. Going as far as to portray the same event through multiple conflicting interpretations so that nobody can claim “this is not how it went down” because even the movie never really told us what transpired.
Whenever I watch biopics or movies based on real events, I tend to research the characters to understand if the depicted events actually happened in real life. I have learned that not everything portrayed in such movies is accurate. For instance, in the movie M.S. Dhoni: The Untold Story, the protagonist only had a sister, while in real life, he has a brother. Therefore, it is always advisable to conduct thorough research after watching a biopic or a movie based on real events to acquire a true understanding of the subject matter.
I don't recall which movie it was, but prior to said movie as a kid i'd see "Based on a true story" believing those exact events took place. The movie in question i recall the actual story that happened but the movie kinda touched on facts but overall the rest was fiction. That's when I realized "Based" on a true story simply means they took inspiration from it, in the same sense that if I were cooking a meal and said it is "tomato base", does not mean the meal itself will be tomatoes, it will simply have some in it but the rest of the meal may be completely different.
Can’t stop thinking about the ending of Barry while watching this video
These films should just be an entertaining gateway to whet your appetite. If you like what you see, go dig deeper and learn more and the real truth.
No one should read anything on Twitter. That's been true for forever.
Another example is "A Beautiful Mind". While it had its dark moments, the movie was much less dark than the original book on which it was based. John Nash was also not the patriot the movie made him out to be; in fact, he tried to renounce his citizenship more than once but he was denied. He would also disappear for months at a time, and his wife eventually got a divorce from him during one of his long absences (they eventually remarried once he was able to become stable again). I love the movie, but it was definitely dramatized.
Walk Hard: A Dewey Cox Story literally ruined Elvis for me. The entire movie felt like a parody of itself and I kept laughing the whole time
If you think that the last samurai is a white savior movie you havent watched it. I highly recommend you watch history buffs video on it so you will understand. There is absolutely nothing that he does that changes anything, he witness what happening and cant do anything to change the outcome.
2 minutes in and I can already tell you a movie that perfectly encapsulates the point of this video: 300. The movie that we watch is really an epic and embellished retelling of the battle they had with the Persian army
Yeah it's based on a graphic novel of the same name by Frank Miller. I thought it was obvious the movie is pure fiction and I would be saddened to think anyone would think it's historically accurate.
@rootfish2671 well, even more so that the second wave of Spartan soldiers would believe the story as accurate. Embellishments for inspiration
These movies are like a wikipedia article, they just tell us quickly what we wanted to know, but if we're interested, we can go to the bottom and actually read about it. The social problem is when people only deems entertainment as pure entertainment, admitting they're just buying from the industry to get a quick fix, which is what the industry wants. "This director is making a fanfiction of a historical event or a famous person? put it some make up, try to widen the audience as much as possible, tell them it actually happen so they get outraged/inspired" I mean, doesn't sound bad until you realize that they don't encourage people to learn about the fact, but talk about the product, because it is "THE TRUTH"
That's why I will never forgive Fargo "This is a true story" - NO! Literally none of it is. Realized this after 4 loyal seasons 😭😭
Finchers Zodiac is probably the best version of a true story. It’s either that or Saving Private Ryan
I'm sure is a lot harder to tell the true when it's about already dead people. here in Brazil we have one of the best biopics ever made about two singers and theyr journy, it was made with the help of their families and other people that knew them.
Personally, I prefer trie stories over movies and shows, because they’re often way more interesting/crazier/ involved than fiction leads on (even if they don’t have a nearly tied narrative) I do enjoy a good story, though. And I really appreciate when media can shed a light on interesting or important topics and people.
Very interesting video my friend.
Say what you will about music biopics, Walk Hard absolutely nailed the Dewey Cox story and it was criminal of you to never mention it here.
The burden shouldn’t be on me to seek the truth. The burden is on the creator that needs to not lie! They should at least be required to release something listing/showing all liberties & inaccuracies done, somewhere around the release date of the product. I shouldn’t leave the theatre thinking one thing and then find out on some random KZhead vid 1 week later that it was a lie or deceptive or I never even find out. On the flip side I shouldn’t have to watch something with prior knowledge and see it full of inaccuracies.
I enjoyed Killers of the Flower Moon as a movie, but I can only imagine how much better it would have been if each event was from the perspective of the Osage people, especially the leading woman. I just feel that it would’ve been so much more interesting and emotionally captivating. It was difficult for me to invest in any characters because the people we see as good and the victims are barely focused on, and the actual main character deserved to rot in hell for a lifetime.
Okay, but what about the caption "This is still a true story" when The Rock was grilling of someones finger prints halfway through Pain & Gain? :D That Micheal Bay movie is remarkably accurate!
Bios are just snapshots of a person life. It's when they take huge liabilities with history it becomes irksome..like Braveheart. I would classify those kind of films as fiction.
Based on a true story is taken way to siriusly , like clueless is based on Emma. Based /inspired is just what it's says, taking some ideas. The lable ment to say we don't want to ignore the person we take story elements from.
I always watch a documentary or read about the subject before or after watching a based on a true story movie.