WWTBAM Bored

I always get leery of movies "based on actual events." I understand they have to be condensed, some characters end up as "composite characters," etc. But two movies (one recent, one upcoming) are ones that worked better as documentaries.

The one that was released recently, with Gordon-Levitt as Philip Petit doing the wire-balancing act between the Twin Towers in the 1970s, had me really wondering, since there had been an Oscar-winning (I think) documentary only a few years ago.

Now, Ron Howard has what looks like an effects-laden sea movie that evokes Moby Dick, and for a good reason -- In The Heart of the Sea is based upon the story of the whaler Essex, which was one of the inspirations for Melville's tale of the Great White Whale. I recall seeing more than one documentary on the subject in recent years. And the documentaries were chilling enough -- I don't need to see a gigantic CGI whale fluke to give me the willies. And, knowing how it comes out, I wouldn't look forward to when the survivors have a Donner party, if you get my drift.

Maybe it's the amateur historian in me, but I get a tad scared at historical-based films with big budgets. Their purpose is to sell tickets, not be historically accurate. Of course, some totally scream off the screen as being more fiction than fact (Eight Below and Up Close and Personal come to mind). And, although Howard usually tries to do it right, I still occasionally want to throw things at the screen when Apollo 13 airs, both because of my knowledge of the space race and because I read Lost Moon, the book it was based on.

I guess the thing that gets me the most is how some people (and even us) tend to get our "history" from pop culture. Some work better than others (e.g., some of the WWII movies like Tora! Tora! Tora! and The Longest Day) and some don't, as mentioned above.

And this isn't a knock on historical fiction (e.g. Saving Private Ryan or Gone With The Wind). They have their place, as long as it's reasonably accurate. Otherwise, to quote a GWTW character, "T'aint fittin'. Just tain't fittin'."

So, what are your thoughts of these films? Do you just take them as entertainment? Or do you cringe when facts get in the way of "a good story"?

The book was very good (I mean Philbrick's book, but for that matter, Melville's book wasn't too bad either). It was much more about the survival story than the whale attack - some of the crew survived for about 3 months in an open lifeboat in the middle of the Pacific. I'm sure the movie will emphasize the whale attack more, and a director other than Ron Howard might make a mess out of it, but Howard did a good job with Apollo 13 in my opinion (though I'm sure there were a few inaccuracies there that sticklers could point to). I'm looking forward to the movie. I just wonder which character Clint Howard will play.

I see these simply as a story with a historical backdrop, like Titanic.

SpacemanSpiff wrote: The one that was released recently, with Gordon-Levitt as Philip Petit doing the wire-balancing act between the Twin Towers in the 1970s, had me really wondering, since there had been an Oscar-winning (I think) documentary only a few years ago.

So, what are your thoughts of these films? Do you just take them as entertainment? Or do you cringe when facts get in the way of "a good story"?

What surprised me about The Walk was how much that I thought might have been fictionalized was actually true. The real story details are incredibly cinematic, so much so that a fictional movie would probably have been criticized for being too outlandish. Here's an article about the similarities and differences between the "real" and the "reel" walks.

http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/the-walk/

smilergrogan wrote:The book was very good (I mean Philbrick's book, but for that matter, Melville's book wasn't too bad either). It was much more about the survival story than the whale attack - some of the crew survived for about 3 months in an open lifeboat in the middle of the Pacific. I'm sure the movie will emphasize the whale attack more, and a director other than Ron Howard might make a mess out of it, but Howard did a good job with Apollo 13 in my opinion (though I'm sure there were a few inaccuracies there that sticklers could point to). I'm looking forward to the movie. I just wonder which character Clint Howard will play.

The only thing Howard did wrong with Apollo 13, IMO, was create the fake conflict between Swigert and Haise, and to make Swigert look like a ditzy know-nothing rookie as well. Swigert was plenty qualified- all the astronauts were. Back-up crews were eventually scheduled (or were going to be scheduled) for their own flights later on. Indeed, some have argued that Swigert was actually better suited than Mattingly to deal with the crisis they ended up facing.

Other than that, I didn't care about the other historical inaccuracies.

I hate when they write a whole new story that is mostly fiction like Braveheart and A Beautiful Mind. I can forgive a few inaccuracies if the underlying story is accurate.

Has anyone here seen the newly released film, "Truth" with Robert Redford and Cate Blanchett? I have not, but a friend of mine is a real person named Mike Smith, who is played in "Truth" by Topher Grace. Mike's life is a little strange these days.