I saw the trailer before the Return of the King. It looked like an interesting story so I started to research it. The first things I came up with were sites that pointed to various small historical innaccuracies, like changes in the timing of the ending of the race, the addition of characters in the subplot etc., and then I found the pages of the Long Riders Guild. According to This site the movie Hidalgo is based not on a true story, but on the lies of Frank T. Hopkins. They detail how his stories have no historical corroboration. It looks to me form the trailers that the movie would be interesting, that the whole thing makes a fine story and a fine movie, but it is being promoted as based on a true story. They warn that frankhopkins.com is registered to the writer of the screenplay even though it purports to be published by fans of the mustang breed. If true this seems to be deliberate deception.
Anyone have any opinion on whether the races that this movie is based on are real? If the whole thing is as demonstrably false as the Long Riders Guild maintains, and if it is, whether the words “based on a true story” should be removed from advertisements. Is it ok to lie to enhance a story by claiming it really happened, a la Blair Witch Project?
Movies promoters know that, for some reason, the phrase “based on a true story” brings in crowds, so they are happy to use it whenever they can (the Coens did it for Fargo, which is completely fictional).
In this case, it isn’t a lie. Hopkins may have been lying like a rug, but the story is evidently something Hopkins actually told. Thus, the movie is based on his story. Since he seems to have actually told this story, it’s not a lie to say it’s based on a true story.
As to the site, the people who put it up have too much time on their hands. The should all be made to sit down and read the definition of “fiction” from a dictionary.
Frankly, who gives a good goddamn whether the movie is true or not? It’ll be a good movie or a bad one, and the fact that it’s true or not has no bearing.
No, if the only thing that is real is that Hopkins existed, this is based on a false story, not a true story. Based in a true story may well sell a film better, but shouldn’t there be some standard for saying that? Does having one character based on a real person make a film based on a true story regardless of whether that person did anything in the story?
Um… I believe the phrase you’re searching for here is “based on a story,” which is true for nearly 90% of the movies coming out of Hollywood each year.
No movie in the history of cinema has ever been based on a true story. They’re all lies. Any resemblance between what you see on the big screen and actual events is purely coincidental.
Then you have Schindler’s List. Go look for the book sometime - under fiction…despite the fact the most of the people in the book did exist and did do something like what they did, but subject to enough creative license that Keneally published the book as fiction.
Or Steven Brust’s Cowboy Feng’s - published under fiction, but don’t bring that book up among a certain subset of Minneapolis Fandom - its their lives.
There is a wide difference between “no historical corroboration” and “didn’t happen” (ask Christians).
Hollywood does a piss poor job of documentaries. And there doesn’t need to be much truth (an Arabian horse race at the turn of the century is enough, I believe there were several, some with Americans in them) for it to be “based” on a true story. It drives me nuts too.
Former equestrienne ringing in. The whole story screams “tall tale” to me, and barring extensive corroboration, I’ll treat it as not only fiction, but wildly improbable fiction. I plan on watching it only for MST3k purposes.
I really hate seeing “based on a true story” used to advertise complete fiction. Just because 100% accuracy isn’t achieveable in non-fiction doesn’t mean the term is completely up for grabs.
I agree. In my opinion, the Coen brothers are as guilty of false advertising (or at least false representation, if the line “based on a true story” was never actually used in an ad) as any food manufacturer who claims a product with fat in it is “fat free.”
If a movie or its trailers say “based on a true story,” then something with at least passing similarity to the events the movie portrays should’ve happened in real life.
And it’s also puts a stain on the film’s artistic credentials. To me, the Coens saying Fargo was “based on a true story” when it wasn’t cheapened a good film. It’s so infuriating; they didn’t need to lie!
This kind of thing does not drive me nuts; if necessary, I am perfectly capable of doing the research to find out the supposed ‘true’ story. More on that later.
I agree that the Coens really didn’t need to lie. But anything involving the movies needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
When a cinematic tale intrigues me, I can explore it further. I very much enjoyed Braveheart but it did not take much delving to discover the many historical inaccuracies. So what? As RealityChuck says, it will either be a good movie or a bad one.
Back to the research I mentioned: the veracity of “true stories” is only as truthful and unslanted as those who record them, and/or the ones who come later and interpret such history for the reader.
I never cease to be amazed how, on a message board full of intelligent, articulate people, there always seems to be someone determined to find a reason to be offensive. Did I say I was going to utter one peep while in the theater? No. There are lots of ways to MST3K a movie that are completely silent. On-line, for example.
Sorry, but you didn’t indicate such. I’ve BEEN to screenings where people were misting the movie, and people write how they’ve laughed and talked with their buddies and thrown popcorn at the screen while watching a movie. How am I to know you’re not one of those people when you come out and say, even before you’ve seen it or so much as read a review, that you “plan on watching it only for MST3k purposes”?
Why? How was the movie any different? Did the action on the screen suddenly change?
I go to a movie for entertainment. How is that changed in the slightest if the story I see is true or not?
Again, why? Is there a law requiring this?
But they are liars. They write fiction. As Harlan Ellison pointed out, fiction writers are professional liars. Why is it any different to say “based on a true story” then portraying Frances McDormand as being pregnant when she really wasn’t?
In this case, the Coens were making a joke on all the films that say, “based on a true story,” when they take all sorts of liberties. It’s a joke on people who are foolish enough to think a “true story” makes the slighest difference in a film.
Yes, “Fargo” has the tag line “based on a true story”. It also has the standard disclaimer: “Any similiarities between any persons living or dead is purely coincidental”.
It wasn’t a lie, it was a joke. A joke, I say, son.
I’ve seen enough movies to take “based on a true story” with a grain of salt. I’m not surprised when Hollywood, that well-known bastion of integrity, plays fast and loose with the facts.
I’m with Equipoise. Hidalgo looks like a darn fun movie, regardless of how “true” it is.
Huh? If this were the case, all stories would be based on true stories, non-fiction or not. All a writer would have to do is recite their story to someone…
No, I think RealityChuck is right. If I were to sit down and write a story right now, completely from my imagination, then obviously, it wouldn’t be based on a true story. But if I asked my husband to tell me about the first girl he ever loved, and he told me, andI wrote it, I would say it’s “based on a true story”—whether or not I have anyway to verify that the story he told me is authentic…furthermore, it’s possible that if he wasn’t telling me the whole truth, there were elements of the truth. The story he told me (even if it’s embellished) is based on a true story. Not faithfully re-created.
I’ve got to disagree. All storytelling is a compact with the audience. The audience needs a reason to believe in the story and in the storyteller. “Believe” is an emotional term in this usage, an acceptance of the emotional truth and meaning of the tale. It’s not a small thing. The audience is bartering its valuable time for the reward that is a good story.
Lying to the audience right off the bat destroys this emotional compact: it shows contempt for the audience. It is never necessary.
