So we watched “Dreamer” last night. Great family flick. Yeah it’s predictable as all get out, but it was well executed, it made me well up a bit, and my daughter went ga-ga over it.
But what’s with the title? The actual official name of the movie (according to imdb at least) is “Dreamer: Inspired by a True Story” According to this site, the story of the movie was “inspired” by Mariah’s Storm, a horse who showed promise, broke her cannon bone, recovered and performed remarkably in subsequent races.
But there never was a Crane horse farm with no horses, no touching three generation story, no brother princes, no Thunderpants - hell, there wasn’t even a precocious Cale nor an eponymous Soñador!. There is only some horse that experienced a vaguely similar incident.
How much true-ness of a true story should a movie have before they can rightly attach the term “true story” to its promotion - and how much more before they can tack it onto the title? I mean, come on - if the criteria were always set as low as “Dreamer” then every movie is “inspired by a true story”
“Star Trek III - The Search for Spock: Inspired by a True Story”
(my mom lost her copy of Baby and Childcare)
“My Cousin Vinny: Inspired by a True Story”
(look in the phone book. Lotsa Vinny’s - one of them must be someone’s cousin)
“Nightmare on Elm Street: Inspired by a True Story”
(I used to live on Elm St. and I once had a nightmare there)
The movie Fly away Home was supposedly “based on a true story”, but IIRC, the only similarity is a guy in an ultralight who flew with a flock of geese. no heartwarming story about a girl who lost her mom.
My favorite, though, is the TV movie The Birdmen , which completely misrepresents the story of the almost-escape by glider from German prison camp Kolditz Strafelager in WWII. They depict the glider as flying (It didn’t – the camp was liberated first), carrying a cdesperately-needed expert in nuclear physics for the US bomb effort (snicker), and made several of the major characters Americans (none of them were, IIRC).
It’s when there’s a wholesale disconnect between the original incident and the depiction of it that people get riled. If you’re advertising something as “inspired by a true story”, you’d think there would be at least a semblance of similarity. Otherwise it’s just false advertising, right? and surely no one wants that…
It’s because people (including many on the board who would complain about “based on a true story”) think that if something’s “realistic” or “true,” it is somehow more interesting that if it’s made up.
It’s generally due to a lack of imagination. But as long as people think a “true” story is somehow better than a fictional one, then Hollywood would be foolish not to exploit that weakness.
I don’t loathe such people, but I can understand the reaction. People don’t know the difference between “BASED ON” and “INSPIRED BY” and they think it’s the movie’s fault. It’s annoying. It’s also tough to see people like CalMeacham and RealityChuck make fools out of themselves, when they seem so smart other times.
And there might be story rights involved. If it closely follows a real event, then whoever it happened to is usually due some money. If it is “inspired by”, and deviates sufficiently from fact, then the producers don’t have to pay.
“Inspired by” is meaningless noise. Every movie is “inspired by” a true story, in that the people, the events, the plots are based on the writer’s experience with human beings. (Yes, that includes sf stories as well. Well, maybe not The Matrix.) “Inspired by” is nothing more or less than a marketing term used because it fools people into thinking that the movie has some connection to specific events in the lives of specific people. And for some reason this gets people into the theaters.
It’s a weasel word. It’s used because people honestly do not know the difference between “based on” - which itself can have any meaning or none, but usually means nothing more than “we paid money to somebody for the rights” - and “inspired by” - which usually means “we took such liberties that we couldn’t even pay someone to give it a semblance of legitimacy”. I’m stunned that anyone here would be defending it.
Yes, “based on” and “inspired by” should mean different things. Inclusion of the words “true story” ought to mean there are some actual facts involved. But they don’t.
As mentioned above, there have been completely fictional movies that use “based on True Story” somewhere in their opening scenes.
Yes, it bugs me a little. But I remind myself, hey it’s Hollywood. It’s probably a good thing they do shit like this, because no one will ever believe anything that comes out of there is a real true story, ever.
Another example of this phenomenon is the TV series “Law and Order.” They run a disclaimer that the story is entirely made-up, while the promotions constantly refer to “ripped from the headlines” and the plotlines resemble various real-life cases. (It also means that I end up sitting there trying to remember the original case while watching the show.)
I don’t mind that Law & Order does this, especially since I have fun trying to remember the original case. And I don’t mind movies that are “inspired by a true story.” I don’t expect them to match the original story word-for-word, of course, since I’m watching Hollywood entertainment and not a cinema verite documentary.
Fair enough. Personally, I don’t like it when the studios try to play off fictional films as true stories; even with sneaky language like “inspired by.” Not because I’ll be fooled, but because AVERAGE AMERICAN will go around telling people it really happened.
As a Doper, I am opposed to encouraging such ignorance.
Cool! I’ve never had anyone direct that word at me before. Despite the no-personal-attacks rule in the Cafe, I thank you for the unique experience
However, I did neither sidestep nor ignore the phrase “inspired by” I merely expected that any stated connection to a true story, esp. if the connection is in the title of the movie, would contain more of that inspirational true story. I was disappointed when the truly inspiring aspects of the movie turned out to be mere fiction.
It is likely that all movies are “inspired by” something that actually happened (as Exapno Mapcase rightly points out). To go out of the way and state such implies a closer depiction of an actual true story.
I certainly did not intend to split hairs over “based on” / “inspired by.” For what it’s worth, I noted the distinction. All “true story” movies embelish/dramatize/conflate characters/take licence (as they should). Some uncritical viewers treat true story movies as documentary, or worse news coverage. I had hoped the filmmakers chose “inspired by” to remind viewers not to do so.
That is not to detract from a fine piece of entertainment. The phrase added nothing to the story, rather detracted (after the fact) by setting a false expectation. No, there shouldn’t be a law - but sheesh, why say “inspired by…” as if it were something special?
> BLAM!! BLAM!! < ::: Moderator bangs gavel for attention :::
First, Breakdancing Duck, you are over the edge yet again. I have, in another thread, issued a Final Warning. Since I’m just now getting to all of these, it’s not fair to whomp you for something before you saw that Final Warning.
I’ve told you before: in this forum, we have polite, well-mannered discussions about art and entertainment. You seem incapable of this. Or, at least, you’re not doing it. You will henceforth behave yourself, or leave. Forcibly, if necessary.
Dark Side of the Floyd, you are completely out of line. You make the problem harder. When you find someone being a jerk, your best response is to hit the REPORT button and let the Moderator handle it. Because now, you see, when I yell at Duck, his response is: Why must I be polite and well-mannered when other posters aren’t.
So, Floyd, you’re out of line. And you damn well know better. Behave yourself.
There was at least one thread here ranting about how the remake of The Amityville Horror was using the whole “based on a true story” bilge.
I will note that one of the most historically accurate film’s I’ve seen, Tucker: The Man and His Dream, doesn’t use the whole “based on a true story” bit. (And in the director’s commentary Coppola clearly states what’s speculation and what’s not.)
