NationStates Jolt Archive

I am reading "Hidalgo and other Stories" by Frank T. Hopkins.

This version was put out by the longriders guild and it's supposed to be about him being a fake.

It would almost be interesting to read about why his stories are simply stories and not facts if it weren't for the outright bile hatred they go about doing this.

Conjecture about what Hopkins and his wife had in mind when these stories were written. Comments about he died knowing he got his lies in reputable sources. Comments about his wife being lady macbeth, etc.

One of their burning issues was the movie stating "Based on a true story"

My question is basically was is the legal intrepretation of that? It's one thing to say "This is a true story" where it has to be based on facts.

"Based on a true story" (to me) simply says there is some truth but the movie took some liberties....

Does anybody really care if a movie is based on a true story?

Does anybody really care if a movie is based on a true story?

Certainly not Mel Gibson.

Certainly not Mel Gibson.

Well people seem to add them blindly to any movie that has even the vaguest relationship to reality and real events. I just don't see hwy they bother. I don't think I'd enjoy a movie any more if it was based on actual events than if it was blatant fiction.

Does anybody really care if a movie is based on a true story?

I would say it does affect how we watch a film - I've neither the idea nor the inclination to search as to how but I suspect we're more engaged in some way when given the information 'based on actual events' or similar.

I'm sure there's some studies on children brain waves being different when seeing a cartoon as opposed to real people and I really vaguely remember Sesame Street being a product of this. I'd think a simple line would make a change as well.

I'd say the 'based' part gives legal cover against defamation to some extent but I guess an actual legal head would need to confirm this.

EDIT: As the cogs of my brain slowly grind into thought I need to refine my point. Think of the difference between reading a newspaper and reading a short story - the brain engages differently from 'I'm learning something' to 'I'm being entertained'. It engages differently.

The Sesame St point is not really relevant aside from the fact that we engage differently in terms of real facts (in terms of the film in that we're viewing it from the point of real people as opposed to fictional people) over pure entertainment.

Mel Gibson is a good case, because we mostly understand that we're watching entertainment over historical fact but there's certainly a difference where we're presented with a blank history of knowledge.

EDIT EDIT: I'm even going to put forward the memory that, even where it says 'this is a true story', you'll still find the disclaimer that 'the events and people portrayed in this movie bear no resemblance to anyone living or dead...blah blah' at the end.

All this is off my decidedly poor memory.

One of their burning issues was the movie stating "Based on a true story"

My question is basically what is the legal intrepretation of that? It's one thing to say "This is a true story" where it has to be based on facts.

"Based on a true story" (to me) simply says there is some truth but the movie took some liberties....
it's exactly that.
It's from a famous case back in the late 20's or early 30's centered around the guy (Prince Youssoupov) who orchestrated the murder of Russia's greatest love machine: Ra, Ra, Rasputin.

After the revolution, he fled and eventually ended up in America. He lived on his reputation as the 'man who murdered Rasputin', there being a huge morbid following in this deed as the mythology surrounding Rasputin had grown immensely (helped by our friend the Prince who added hyperbole with each re-telling of his deeds).

Because of this enormous amount of interest in the murder, a movie company made and released a movie based around the events as Youssoupov described them. However, they changed his name (and the names of the co-conspirators) in an effort to avoid needing to pay anyone. He took them to court, successfully arguing that the main character in the movie could be no-one else but himself regardless of who they had called him or what he looked like on film and thus was entitled to be compensated for the movie company using his person without his approval. The jury awarded him a substantial amount (iirc ~$1 million - remember this was the early 30s).

End result of this was that all movies from then on carry either the caveat at the end stating that "any similarities to persons living or dead is entirely coincidental", or at the beginning where it says it's "based on a true story". Just to stop anyone else suing a movie company if they do depict a close likeness of that person in film (either accidently or delibrately).

Thus this bloke, Prince Youssoupov is actually responsible for two 20th Century phenomena.

Demented 'man but me knows a bunch of pointless trivia' Hamster

Well people seem to add them blindly to any movie that has even the vaguest relationship to reality and real events. I just don't see hwy they bother. I don't think I'd enjoy a movie any more if it was based on actual events than if it was blatant fiction.

Oh there are people who think films tell history.

My wife took a class in French to prepare for an opera. Her teacher would try to inject French culture and history.

She once got a question about King Louis' brother. The teacher asked her to clarify and it turned out she was talking about the Man in the Iron Mask. :eek:

it's exactly that. *snip*

Thanks! :)

It’s like the story of Fargo.

The film starts with the words: “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.”

However, the film is fictional, but the Coens claim that many scenes in the film were taken from a number of murder cases that they then cobbled together. Interestingly, Joel Coen said that, “If an audience believes that something’s based on a real event, it gives you permission to do things they might otherwise not accept.”

And to this day, people still roam about the Minnesota and North Dakota countryside, searching for non-existent treasure.

Transformer, based on a true story..

"Based on a true story" does not mean much. For example, the movie "300" was based on a real event but was embellished quite a bit. When you see that something is based on a true story you should recognize that there is probably a lot more "Hollywood factor" than historical accuracy.

Let's say that I knew a couple that slept in an old Victorian bed and breakfast. I could make a movie about a whole family that spent the night there and all kinds of spooky stuff happened to the family and eventually the family escapes after lots of suspense. It would probably be fair to say that this story was based on a true story of a couple that spent the night in a bed and breakfast. This would be a ratio of a gallon of Hollywood factor to a mL of truth.

"Based on a true story" (to me) simply says there is some truth but the movie took some liberties....
yep. same here.

You're dealing with some intellectual property issues here. For one, facts and ideas are not copyrightable. Whether those facts are dates, events, names of people or what have you, those things are all part of the public domain and cannot be restricted by copyright. Only the EXPRESSION of facts can become copyrightable.

So when they say, 'based on a true story', this does not mean that what you are about to see is a documentary or completely true to the facts...or even somewhat true to the facts. There is nothing inherent in 'based on a true story' that requires the writer/director to present those facts in a certain way.

Now, the case that Demented Hamsters brough up has to do with property in personality. Someone who has created or maintained a certain personality actually has a copyright in that personality...to what extent has been debated in the courts. You can not, without authorisation, use Paris Hilton, for example, to hype your book. You can, however, publish a book including facts about Paris Hilton that are in the public domain.

Part of the copyright to personality a person may have is to determine how their image will be marred by other people's portrayals. However, there is also a right to parody which is sometimes difficult to balance with the intellectual property rights of the copyright holder.

For interest, you should read the White v. Samsung (http://www.law.uconn.edu/homes/swilf/ip/cases/white.htm) case to see just how far some courts will extend this protection of personality. It's a highly disputed outcome and not one that I think will become overly common, but it does really outline some of the difficulties in balancing public access and private rights to intellectual property.

I am reading "Hidalgo and other Stories" by Frank T. Hopkins.

This version was put out by the longriders guild and it's supposed to be about him being a fake.

It would almost be interesting to read about why his stories are simply stories and not facts if it weren't for the outright bile hatred they go about doing this.

Conjecture about what Hopkins and his wife had in mind when these stories were written. Comments about he died knowing he got his lies in reputable sources. Comments about his wife being lady macbeth, etc.

One of their burning issues was the movie stating "Based on a true story"

My question is basically was is the legal intrepretation of that? It's one thing to say "This is a true story" where it has to be based on facts.

"Based on a true story" (to me) simply says there is some truth but the movie took some liberties....

Indeedy. "Based on" means that somewhere between 1 and 99% of the film may be true. Usually its far far far closer to 1 than 99 of course.

The venom usually occurs when somebody who has done something comes across somebody who hasn't who say that he has. Bear Grills and everest come to mind.

*snip

Anything inspired by actual events. Legals purposes? Hollywood can do anything they want. They can contort or lie, just so long as it's not about someone still alive. If they're dead, they have no-rights. Ya get it?

An example of something "inspired by actual events" is the story The Duel, which was written by Joseph Conrad. The events ran thus: a man kills a popular fellow in a duel. An officer is sent to arrest this man. The arrester and the arrestee get a duel. Ever after that, for years they fights duels, all inconclusive. They won't talk about why.

In The Duel Conrad takes these events and adapts them: he alters the names of the characters, and gives a reason behind the duels.

The story was then adapted into a movie...The Duellists. It is probably the most realistic fencing movie ever made.

My advice? Do not consider movies fact.

Does anybody really care if a movie is based on a true story?

Personally I tend to avoid them.
(media that claim to be based or inspired by true events)
I have absolutely no patience for sappy/melodramatic bullshit, or that other "heart rending/inspiring" crap.
Then again I do tend to choose my movies by 1) "ooh... pretty!" 2) "yay! hardcore violence!" or 3) "oh, HAWT!"
Occasionally I'll watch something because it has an actor/actress I think is good in it. But generally I don't take much seriously... I can't stand pretentious junk.
Like horror movies.

I am reading "Hidalgo and other Stories" by Frank T. Hopkins.

This version was put out by the longriders guild and it's supposed to be about him being a fake.

It would almost be interesting to read about why his stories are simply stories and not facts if it weren't for the outright bile hatred they go about doing this.

Conjecture about what Hopkins and his wife had in mind when these stories were written. Comments about he died knowing he got his lies in reputable sources. Comments about his wife being lady macbeth, etc.

One of their burning issues was the movie stating "Based on a true story"

My question is basically was is the legal intrepretation of that? It's one thing to say "This is a true story" where it has to be based on facts.

"Based on a true story" (to me) simply says there is some truth but the movie took some liberties....

Others have covered the specifics better than I could have, but just to make the general point: they include it whenever there's a remote possibility that if they didn't, they'd have to pay for the privilege of producing the movie.

In general terms, there's a great number of scripts floating around Hollywood at any one time, especially of heroic underdog stories, epic journey stories, roadtrip stories, etc. Whenever there's a chance of overlap between a script that's picked up and one that's known to be floating around, studios will often buy the rights to the floaters for cheap, attach "Based on a true story" to their original movie, and then change details as much as they want to get the satisfactory plot because now they don't have to worry about legal wrangling.

Ironically enough, a good example of this phenomena in a different context is Paul Verhoevan's Starship Troopers. Verhoevan was originally making a movie called Bug Wars when the studio noticed some similarities between that and a long-languishing movie script for the Heinlein classic Starship Troopers, namely that both involved shooting big effing bugs. So they bought the rights to the script, changed the name to Starship Troopers, and then made Bug Wars. The only problem wasn't so much the coopting the script from a financial standpoint so much as Heinlein's fan base is particularly rabid, and as one of them, I can say that we were generally pretty pissed to expect Starship Troopers (although, to be fair, Starship Troopers as a meditation on the nature of a soldier-citizen is virtually unflimable) and get Doogie Himmler.