My favourite one though is "Fire in the Sky". I saw it years ago and thought it was a decent movie, but I laughed when it said "based on a true story".
A idea like this has been on the back of my mind but more like forming a taxonomy of embellishments and dramatic license. Figure out which ones are somewhat necessary and which ones are "bad". Particularly bad would be those that villainize a real person which role in the actual event was more benign. Coach Dan Devine in "Rudy" and boxer Max Baer Sr. in "Cinderella Man" come to mind.
Years ago, a British TV show called The Comic Strip Presents... made two films called The Strike[0] and GLC: The Carnage Continues[1]. Both comedies about what would happen if Hollywood were to make films about '80s British political events like the miners' strike or the abolition of the Greater London Council. While they're both broad comedies I think watching them at an impressionable age was probably quite a good education.
When it came out, I went to see "Amadeus" with friends, one of them an amateur musicologist. When we left the theater, he said, "Well, where should I start?"
Chernobyl irks me a lot. They did very well with visuals: almost got a PTSD reaction when I recognized the corridors in the first episode, the same architecture, and even the paint. Later discovered that they filmed at Ignalina PP, a similar type of reactor, but larger (RBMK-1500 vs RBMK-1000).
But they completely missed people and their interactions, mentality, and attitude. And they were dressed too well ;) The last episode was cringy - they just repeated the lies that the Soviets told the world, blaming the operators, with a lot of bullshit in the sequence of events that led to the catastrophe.
More interesting than true or fake is what was left out. Bohemian rhapsody, for instance, was extremely sanitized even if what they showed was mostly real.
Yeah they did a lot of weird things. Like Keira Knightly's character Joan Clarke gets her job in the film when Turing does his weird crossword puzzle test. In real life she got it because one of her professors from school recommended her for the job. In the movie Turing works closely with Cairncross and realizes he is a Soviet spy. In real life while they worked at Bletchley park there is no evidence they ever met. It also really downplays the role Polish intelligence and cryptanalysts had in breaking Enigma from before the war even started.
It also generally portrays almost everyone around him at Bletchley as some level of ignorant, stupid or maliciously obstructive, despite the fact that most of them were brilliant mathematicians and engineers whose contribution equalled his. But the real story of an incredible collaborative effort is sacrificed for a facile Hollywood narrative of a single, misunderstood genius single-handedly saving the day. It’s honestly one of the worst films ever made.
I don't know where to even begin with the imitation game. It is shocking that they put a real person's name to such fiction. Everyone involved should be a bit ashamed of themselves.
This website is amazing for inspiration, and this page from it is awesome.
Originally 'the camera never lied' but nowadays 'the camera always lies'. This is my new starting point for everything I see.
Part of the art of storytelling for me is all about truth. The most fascinating stories are the true ones. Getting that truth told without confabulation or exaggeration is the goal as far as I see it, unless I am reading a bedtime story to an eight-year-old.
There is no Oscar or Golden Globe for movies that are the most grounded in fact. Yet so often, the true story, or even the printed book version (versus the movie) is the better story.
Clearly there are limitations on what can be done in budget and in time, and nothing from the past can be recreated verbatim, particularly if you want to trim down many story lines spanning many days/months/years into 90-120 minutes. However, this page confirms my hunch that, in the last century, the camera 'never lied' but, in this century, the camera never tells the truth.
I'd suggest 'Braveheart', but it would make for a rather monotonous infographic.
http://celticfringe.net/history/brave.html
My favourite inaccuracy being the bridge-less Battle of Stirling Bridge!
Edit: And wasn't the "brave heart" Bruce's that was taken on crusade after its owner's death?
Brave Heart is an excellent example.
My favourite one though is "Fire in the Sky". I saw it years ago and thought it was a decent movie, but I laughed when it said "based on a true story".
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106912/
Also 'Papillon'.
A idea like this has been on the back of my mind but more like forming a taxonomy of embellishments and dramatic license. Figure out which ones are somewhat necessary and which ones are "bad". Particularly bad would be those that villainize a real person which role in the actual event was more benign. Coach Dan Devine in "Rudy" and boxer Max Baer Sr. in "Cinderella Man" come to mind.
The captain on the Titannic, as I understand. And the owner of the White Star Line.
Years ago, a British TV show called The Comic Strip Presents... made two films called The Strike[0] and GLC: The Carnage Continues[1]. Both comedies about what would happen if Hollywood were to make films about '80s British political events like the miners' strike or the abolition of the Greater London Council. While they're both broad comedies I think watching them at an impressionable age was probably quite a good education.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-oufaMHUHw
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBFSo4TY_r8
When it came out, I went to see "Amadeus" with friends, one of them an amateur musicologist. When we left the theater, he said, "Well, where should I start?"
Chernobyl irks me a lot. They did very well with visuals: almost got a PTSD reaction when I recognized the corridors in the first episode, the same architecture, and even the paint. Later discovered that they filmed at Ignalina PP, a similar type of reactor, but larger (RBMK-1500 vs RBMK-1000).
But they completely missed people and their interactions, mentality, and attitude. And they were dressed too well ;) The last episode was cringy - they just repeated the lies that the Soviets told the world, blaming the operators, with a lot of bullshit in the sequence of events that led to the catastrophe.
More interesting than true or fake is what was left out. Bohemian rhapsody, for instance, was extremely sanitized even if what they showed was mostly real.
Heh. Selma wins.
I guess a lot of liberties were taken in The Imitation Game.
Yeah they did a lot of weird things. Like Keira Knightly's character Joan Clarke gets her job in the film when Turing does his weird crossword puzzle test. In real life she got it because one of her professors from school recommended her for the job. In the movie Turing works closely with Cairncross and realizes he is a Soviet spy. In real life while they worked at Bletchley park there is no evidence they ever met. It also really downplays the role Polish intelligence and cryptanalysts had in breaking Enigma from before the war even started.
It also generally portrays almost everyone around him at Bletchley as some level of ignorant, stupid or maliciously obstructive, despite the fact that most of them were brilliant mathematicians and engineers whose contribution equalled his. But the real story of an incredible collaborative effort is sacrificed for a facile Hollywood narrative of a single, misunderstood genius single-handedly saving the day. It’s honestly one of the worst films ever made.
I don't know where to even begin with the imitation game. It is shocking that they put a real person's name to such fiction. Everyone involved should be a bit ashamed of themselves.
Kind of like how U-571 downplays the non-Americans involved in the Enigma.
Worth a look: https://www.theregister.com/2015/01/26/verity_stob_turing_mo...
This website is amazing for inspiration, and this page from it is awesome.
Originally 'the camera never lied' but nowadays 'the camera always lies'. This is my new starting point for everything I see.
Part of the art of storytelling for me is all about truth. The most fascinating stories are the true ones. Getting that truth told without confabulation or exaggeration is the goal as far as I see it, unless I am reading a bedtime story to an eight-year-old.
There is no Oscar or Golden Globe for movies that are the most grounded in fact. Yet so often, the true story, or even the printed book version (versus the movie) is the better story.
Clearly there are limitations on what can be done in budget and in time, and nothing from the past can be recreated verbatim, particularly if you want to trim down many story lines spanning many days/months/years into 90-120 minutes. However, this page confirms my hunch that, in the last century, the camera 'never lied' but, in this century, the camera never tells the truth.
Where is Fargo?
That ribbon would be as red as the movie's snow.
Submitted several times over the years but only one small discussion earlier this year:
Visualizations that show how true "based on a true story" movies are - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43874753 - May 2025 (10 comments)
(2019)