I just watched Midnight Express and thought it was a real good movie but how much of it was true I wonder?
There are a few films out there that say "based on a true story" but I'm sure the producers liven it up someways, ya think?
Any other films you know of that are like this?

That reminds me of the CTV Terry Fox movie. Based on a true story of course, and probably did a good job in representing the facts. However, the dramatisation of the dialogue and stuff was unbearably corny. I can't believe they actually succeeded in making Terry Fox, a Canadian national hero, sound so melodramatic and gay every time he talked to his friend. I couldn't watch it. I gave it my best shot, but I just had to change the channel.

And it's pretty messed up too because that could have been a really good, serious film that, had it been a well made feature film with decent actors and a good script, could have done well at the domestic box office (which is rare for a Canadian film). Oh well. Another opportunity missed.

http://vincechan.net/images/posts/2005-09-17/terryMovieBanner.jpg

Apparently there was another film version of his life made for HBO in 1983. That one has to be better. I'm going to see if I can't find it somewhere.

^ I never got around to seeing that one with Shawn Ashmore, but I did see the 1983 original, which was very well done.  It was an excellent portrait of a true Canadian hero.  Eric Fryer, the actor who played Terry Fox in the film did a bang up job, and even won the 1984 Genie Award for Best Actor

^ I never got around to seeing that one with Shawn Ashmore, but I did see the 1983 original, which was very well done.  It was an excellent portrait of a true Canadian hero.  Eric Fryer, the actor who played Terry Fox in the film did a bang up job, and even won the 1984 Genie Award for Best Actor


I'm so glad. I'll have to find that one. As for the CTV one, well if you get a chance to see it on late night CTV or something, see if you notice what I'm talking about. Worth a shot. I'm sure there are people who liked it.

Touching the Void. 

Story of two climbers in the Andes.  One falls and breaks his leg.  They continue back down the mountain with one guy lowering the other injured guy down on a rope.  He accidently lowers him over an overhang and can't haul him back up.  So the rope is cut and the guy falls to his death.  Except amazingly he doesn't die and manages to crawl down the mountain and finds his friends.

I just watched Midnight Express and thought it was a real good movie but how much of it was true I wonder?
There are a few films out there that say "based on a true story" but I'm sure the producers liven it up someways, ya think?
Any other films you know of that are like this?



I think "Inspired by Actual Events" is much better than "Based on a True Story"  certain amounts of creative license has to be taken because....

1) characters get condensed. You may have 20 friends but for the sake of the film they will give you 3 friends and distribute the events that occurred with the 20 among the 3 - even giving something that happened to one of the actual three to someone else just to 'even it out a bit'


2) Time has to be manipulated... there's only 2 -3 hours to tell the story so even though something happened years earlier or later...they may pinch it and add it to the story for dramatic effect.


3) sometimes locations events happened are changed because...you may have done this in a park but it 'plays better' in a bar, etc.


4) exaggerations abound...yeah the truth gets stretched to make it better.


5) somethings are completely fabricated....maybe there's a good story but it only fills an hour of film- then they will make things up to fill the void.


See "inspired by" leaves far more room for manipulation than "based on" and since they're going to do these things anyway why not be more accurate about calling it what it is..

I just watched the movie "Reds" which is about Jack Reed & Louise Bryant. I think it was pretty close to historical fact. What I really loved about it was the fact they had these people who actually knew both of the them telling their stories (which was NOT scripted).



Cat

Not knowing England's history that well I find myself wondering how accurate The Other Boleyn Sister was...

It was definitely the world's first soap storyline (perhaps that's why I loved it so much)

Plus I think it stands the perfect PSA (Public Service Announcement) for Karma!  ;D

Not knowing England's history that well I find myself wondering how accurate The Other Boleyn Sister was...

Not having seen the film yet, but I do believe there are several inaccuracies, where one of them is that Anne Boleyn had six fingers on one hand and this was portrayed correctly.

Not having seen the film yet, but I do believe there are several inaccuracies, where one of them is that Anne Boleyn had six fingers on one hand and this was portrayed correctly.


I wasn't counting her fingers so I don't know if they got that right.... I'm thinking if that's the case why would Henry ever consider her for child bearing I mean wouldn't he want his heir to be "free from defect?"  not that there's anything wrong with having a 6th finger...could come in handy for post whoring....  Anne was a different type of whore (according to this film)  ;)

I wasn't counting her fingers so I don't know if they got that right.... I'm thinking if that's the case why would Henry ever consider her for child bearing I mean wouldn't he want his heir to be "free from defect?"  not that there's anything wrong with having a 6th finger...could come in handy for post whoring....   Anne was a different type of whore (according to this film)   ;)



It wasn't really a whole finger, it was a growth on the bone of her little finger. Well the book and so I guess the film was pretty inacurate on some things. For example there was no way Mary's children were King Henry's the dates are all wrong, also Anne most definatly did not sleep with her brother. there are many more things like that.

It wasn't really a whole finger, it was a growth on the bone of her little finger. Well the book and so I guess the film was pretty inacurate on some things. For example there was no way Mary's children were King Henry's the dates are all wrong, also Anne most definatly did not sleep with her brother. there are many more things like that.


she didn't sleep with her bro in the movie either...although they "almost" did... and were accused of doing so

Not knowing England's history that well I find myself wondering how accurate The Other Boleyn Sister was...

It was definitely the world's first soap storyline (perhaps that's why I loved it so much)

Plus I think it stands the perfect PSA (Public Service Announcement) for Karma!  ;D





Yeah, that was a good soap storyline (the actual story, not the movie because I haven't seen that yet) but I think the world's FIRST was perhaps the story of Cleopatra, her brother and of course Julius Caesar & Marc Antony. That was kind of like "stranger than fiction".  :o :o :o



Cat

Yeah, that was a good soap storyline (the actual story, not the movie because I haven't seen that yet) but I think the world's FIRST was perhaps the story of Cleopatra, her brother and of course Julius Caesar & Marc Antony. That was kind of like "stranger than fiction".  :o :o :o



Cat



oh yeah did I mention I'm not very good at history? 

Perhaps I didn't mean first I just meant classic...or best.

oh yeah did I mention I'm not very good at history? 

Perhaps I didn't mean first I just meant classic...or best.





You really should read the story-don't watch the movie. Even though Liz Taylor made a great Cleopatra and it was a great epic film, it was hardly the story. In those days, Hollywood wouldn't DARE show the REAL story because the censors would have been all over them.  :o :o :o



Cat

I always thought Greek Mythology was the first Soap Opera.

I always thought Greek Mythology was the first Soap Opera.


I think I clarified that I didn't really mean first....lest some religious fanatic starts throwing Kane and Able in my face....  ::)


Cat you could be right about Cleopatra et al... but I've always thought about that as a triangle..which makes for good soap storyline but the Other Boleyn girl kind a beats that on very deep layers...  still I probably only enjoyed in the first place because I have a deep love for soaps...  ;D

You really should read the story-don't watch the movie. Even though Liz Taylor made a great Cleopatra and it was a great epic film, it was hardly the story. In those days, Hollywood wouldn't DARE show the REAL story because the censors would have been all over them.  :o :o :o



Cat


  I love, love, love "Cleopatra" and it's ilk.  They're sometimes referred-to as "sword and sandal" epics...

  Having said that, the whole Hollywood-as-history thing, like you're talking about, never fails to make my butt tired.  Too many young'uns are coming away from these things with the wrong impression of the subject material... 

  Does Hollywood have the right to alter history?  I guess they do.  The studios and writers definitely have the right.  One pitfall, however, is that the actual history is usually more interesting and provides a richer, more complex cast of characters than the black-and-white, morally simple reductions in Hollywood movies.  And I assume even Medieval storytellers played fast-and-loose with the facts too...

  So, if it's entertainment you seek, go to the movies.  If it's history you're looking for, go to the library...

I think I clarified that I didn't really mean first....lest some religious fanatic starts throwing Kane and Able in my face....  ::)


Cat you could be right about Cleopatra et al... but I've always thought about that as a triangle..which makes for good soap storyline but the Other Boleyn girl kind a beats that on very deep layers...  still I probably only enjoyed in the first place because I have a deep love for soaps...  ;D




From what I remember about Cleo & family is that there was a lot of incest and murder in the family. They were all fighting for the throne so they kept killing each other.  :o :o :o



  I love, love, love "Cleopatra" and it's ilk.  They're sometimes referred-to as "sword and sandal" epics...

  Having said that, the whole Hollywood-as-history thing, like you're talking about, never fails to make my butt tired.  Too many young'uns are coming away from these things with the wrong impression of the subject material... 

  Does Hollywood have the right to alter history?  I guess they do.  The studios and writers definitely have the right.  One pitfall, however, is that the actual history is usually more interesting and provides a richer, more complex cast of characters than the black-and-white, morally simple reductions in Hollywood movies.  And I assume even Medieval storytellers played fast-and-loose with the facts too...

  So, if it's entertainment you seek, go to the movies.  If it's history you're looking for, go to the library...



I keep forgetting that you are really into that Roman Empire era. But you are right about History/Hollywood.



Cat