You misunderstand me, Return of the Living Dead DID have the “based on a true story” disclaimer. I am not trying to define it, i am pointing out Hollywood itself already uses it for absolutely anything even vaguely having anything to do with a real story. It is completely meaningless in every way, your own personal impression of the phrase not withstanding.
I am amused by this theme that has continued through the thread. It presents Hollywood as a monolithic structure that behaves in particular ways, coherent and and consistent with specific actions.
The reality is that, while there is certainly a culture in Hollywood that shapes the behavior of many of its participants, the greater reality is that “Hollywood” is simply shorthand for a very large number of separate business enterprises and any given movie is going to be shaped by individual writers, producers, studio executives, and directors, (with some tinkering by actors). The same Hollywood that gave us I want to Live in 1958, (or the better The Wrong Man in 1956), had given us Big Jim McLain in 1952. The same Hollywood that gave us Coming Home in 1978 gave us First Blood in 1982, (and then Rambo: First Blood Part II in 1985).
Certainly, there have been efforts within Hollywood to shape the discourse on social attitudes, but those efforts have tilted both to the Left and to the Right over the years. Aside from the primary impetus of making large sums of money, there really is no “Why?” associated with the actions of a “Hollywood” that does not exist as a single entity.
No, what it means is, “We’re lying to you even by fiction-standards.”
Alternate history is one of my favorite genres. Of fiction.
That’s the key point that some people seem to be missing. I have no problem with the idea of fiction. My problem is when an author writes fiction and then claims he’s telling the truth.
So I have no issues with Gene Roddenberry or Harry Turtledove. It’s people like Oliver Stone and David Irving and Andrew Wakefield that I’m talking about.
They are not claiming to be telling the truth.
To answer the OP, and to echo what others have said here, the producers of the movie had an agenda to promote, and they leveraged a recent event as a vehicle for their message. “Ripped from the headlines”.
Tangent: Another older movie that also promotes the an anti-death penalty theme is “The Oxbow Incident” with Henry Fonda. Altho, this movie is presented as fiction.
Where is the line drawn? Some films are presented as a “documentary”, such as Farenheit 9/11, and appear factual, but still have people arguing over how the “facts” were presented. Animal documentaries have used “stunt” animals and manipulation to get the scene that furthers the story. Even the evening news has some slant to it. It would seem nothing is purely the truth, but merely a collection of images that the director or producer string together to tell a story.
Which is why you should not believe or accept anything you see on TV or in the movies - just take it at face falue. IMHO.
Fiction isn’t lies, unless you think there was an actual boy named Tom Sawyer who whitewashed a fence instead of conning his friends into doing it as Mark Twain would have us believe!!
“Lies” might not be the best term, as that implies an intent to decieve. Fiction (at best, and I don’t believe that the film referenced in the OP counts as “at best”) holds to a higher level of truth than mere factual representation can achieve. Fiction illustrates human nature in a more universal manner than a non-fictional recounting of events.
The worst example I can think of on the based on a true story statement would be the film Communion written by Whitley Strieber and starring Christopher Walken. The film has a statement at the beginning saying it’s based on a true story and then portrays lots of alien abductions and encounters happening to the main character.
It turns out that based on a true story can mean based on what someone said happened to them despite what they claim being totally unsubstantiated. It’s a great example of just how twisted a statement based on a true story can be. Whitley Strieber truely did claim all these things happened to them which of course is not the same as all these things actually did happen to them.
Lies and fiction are the same thing materially. Lies are an immoral fiction, not meant simply for entertainment.
There’s a world of difference between the two. A lie is told as factually true to deliberately deceive the listener, who will rightly feel cheated if he finds out. A novel or fictional movie doesn’t pretend to be the factual truth, and the audience doesn’t expect it to be. No one lies, and no one is deceived.
I take it you haven’t seen The Fourth Kind. Trust me, you really don’t need to see it.
No I don’t believe in an actual person named Tom Sawyer who duped his friends into whitewashing a fence. However I also didn’t believe in a blatant lie when the makers “I Want To Live” ATTEMPT to whitewash the facts in the case of a guilty murderess named Barbara Graham.
I know that Texas Chainsaw Massacre was “inspired” by the crimes of Ed Gein but to claim that the movie is “based on a true story” is a downright lie! I got annoyed when I watched “The Intruders” when that movie also claimed to be based on a true story. Further investigation reveals that years ago a woman would go to houses and knock on the door asking if so and so was home. People would tell her that she had the wrong house. Later it was revealed that homes in that neighborhood that didn’t have anybody home were burglarized. The same film also claimed that the movie was based on the infamous Manson Murders…BULLSHIT! “Helter Skelter” is the most famous one, but I have to say it’s really stretching it to say that “The Intruders” is based on the Manson murders when Manson HIMSELF is NEVER MENTIONED!
One final thought: What is the supposed “true story” that “Return of the Living Dead” is allegedly based on?
FWIW, the Coen Brothers claim Fargo was inspired by this event.
The part about the military losing some barrels filled with dangerous gas i believe. The part about the dead coming back to life was artistic license.
The ending was historically accurate.
Thanks for the laughs.
It did. A human being was put to death by the state. That’s pretty high on the standard List Of Horrible Injustices.
[QUOTE=Opening Tagline from Fargo]
THIS IS A TRUE STORY.
The events depicted in this film
took place in Minnesota in 1987.
At the request of the survivors,
the names have been changed.
Out of respect for the dead,
the rest has been told exactly
as it occurred.
[/QUOTE]
Now, am I an idiot for believing that the movie was substantially true? Is such a tagline “artistic license”? I think it serves no other purpose than to be deliberately misleading.