The line “based on a true story” IS trying to lead us to believe that the events are portrayed accurately, at least the major events. “The Wrong Man” directed by Alfred Hitchcock was also based on a true story. While some dramatic license may have occurred in the film, the fact is that Alfred Hitchcock DID NOT try to take a clearly guilty man and make him out to be an innocent man, the way “I Want To Live” CLEARLY DOES DO with Barbara Graham.
You are simply refusing to understand what “based on a true story” actually means, hint: it doesn’t mean “this is a true story”.
Yes I KNOW it doesn’t mean that “this is a true story” but you cannot seriously tell me that the makers of “I Want To Live” didn’t have an agenda to promote and thus blatantly LIED or distorted facts to promote their own agenda of trying to eliminate the death penalty! IIRC Roger Ebert had a similar problem with the fictional film “The Life of David Gale” when he wrote that he knew what the writers intention was but in the end it made the anti-death penalty crowd (of which Roger Ebert is a member) out to be lying, manipulative frauds. The death penalty is the subject of another thread here, but my particular axe that I have to grind is with Hollywood blatantly LYING by promoting something as “based on a true story” to leave the audience with a false impression since the facts in the actual case would have DESTROYED THE ARGUMENT and the agenda that the moviemakers were trying to promote.
My point exactly…so why does Hollywood try to get away with this crap?
Your willful misunderstanding of what the phrase actually means does not mean hollywood is getting away with something. I could make a movie about how OJ bravely fought of an alien invasion losing his wife in the process and it would be based on a true story.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say it just might be to make money. Money beyond dreams of avarice.
While you could say that, that still wouldn’t make it an accurate portrayal of a true incident, especially if you were trying to prove a political agenda, which is what was being done by the producers of “I Want To Live.”
That’s the whole point, “based on a true story” in no way guarantees that it is an accurate portrayal of a true incident.
Yeah I know it doesn’t “guarantee” anything, but it’s STILL an attempt to mislead.
Because history has value. And fictionalizing history is as wrong as fictionalizing science.
I searched for an official meaning of “based on a true story”. To no one’s surprise, there isn’t a single agreed-upon definition. It can be stretched as far as one wants to take it, apparently.
I’ve always understood “based on a true story” to mean true to the spirit of the story. Some details and elements can be changed for various reasons but the salient points have to be accurate. If Barbara Graham committed a murder and is portrayed as innocent in the movie, that’s hardly true to the spirit of the story in my books.
(Here’s a good column on one person’s reaction after finding out the memoir of a favourite writer was highly-embellished.)
I basically took it as a completely meaningless claim after watching The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Return of the Living dead, both of which had the “based on a true story” disclaimer. You are simply not meant to take that seriously.
Also The Exorcist, Jaws, The Hills Have Eyes, etc etc. You have to be extremely naive to believe claiming to be based on a true story means the movie is meant to be a true portrayal of events.
In other words, “based on a true story” can be an outright lie. I’m not too comfortable with a movie, or anything or anyone, that does that.
It’s fiction. It’s lies. It’s entertainment. Movies that are supposed to conform greatly with actual events are called documentaries, not based-on-true-storyaries.
My local library kept returning the novelization of the remake of TCM to the True Crime section, despite my protests, because the cover said it was “based on a true story.” :rolleyes:
Even so, I feel that making a general story “based on a true story” like the examples you gave isn’t as wrong as supposedly telling the true story about a real individual like Betty Graham or Robert Stroud or Hurricane Carter and then making up the facts about their lives.
More examples:
7 Movies Based on a True Story (That Are Complete Bullshit)
6 Movies Based on a True Story (That Are Also Full of Shit)
6 ‘Based on a True Story’ Movies with Unpleasant Epilogues
11 Movies Saved by Historical Inaccuracy
Such a broad definition makes the phrase meaningless. One could say that Cinderella was based on a true story because there are princes and balls that people attend. We might as well get rid of the phrase entirely.
I’m with other posters: My impression of “based on a true story” means that names and events have been changed, scenes added or taken out for dramatic effect, but the crux of what is being told actually happened.
What if the movie had a tagline that said, “This movie is absolutely true. Everything you see actually happened. We swear to Christ that every word in this movie was spoken in real life! Trust us!”
Would you then argue that, “Hey, it’s fiction! Hollywood is allowed to lie!”?
You’re right, Star Trek is an abomination!
That is very funny. As it happens, my favourite genre of entertainment is that sub-group of Science Fiction commonly called “Alternate History.” ( I happen to believe that a grasp of real history is needed to fully enjoy these stories, but that is not to imply that every entertainment must have footnotes or DVD extras which detail “what really happened,” especially on a work such as is cited in the OP. Propaganda is its own disclaimer.)