Hacker News Reader

Comment by duxup | Hacker News Reader

I had similar questions when it came to the film Sully. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sully_(film)

In that film they portray the NTSB investigators as trying to paint the pilot in a bad light during the investigation. According to the folks involved in the investigation, including the pilot, this never happened.

These are real people, they don't have the reach or voice of a movie, what happens when someone decides to portray them unfairly?

Legally I don't think there's anything to be done, there would be too many bizarre second order effects if you simply couldn't portray someone without their permission. At the same time it seems morally questionable to not involve them, specifically if their voice is so much smaller than the medium.

View on HN

Pretty much every film based on real people and events takes liberties in service of narrative flow and drama. Sometimes one or more of the original parties are involved. Often they're not.

> Pretty much every film based on real people and events takes liberties in service of narrative flow and drama.

Blood on the Blackboard: The Bart Simpson Story

https://youtu.be/02-U9fHefPI

Except they almost never “punch up”.

You don’t have blockbusters fictionalizing “the Trump saga” where he sells state secrets to Putin. Or Ruppert Murdock “Godfather” style fictional drama. Perhaps once they’re long dead, but surely not before.

It’s the Amanda Knox of the world that get the “let’s milk this while it’s fresh” treatment.

Citizen Kane

It craftly avoids naming the media barrons though. I completely understand why, but it should be noted.

Like GP said: "almost never"

You're not aware of Succession?

Is Succession supposed to be based on a true story?

It's loosely inspired by Rupert Murdoch but mostly King Lear.

Thanks, so Succession is also one of the movies that touch on powerful people but change the names and declares itself purely fictional as a safeguard against real world repercussions.

To be clear I totally encourage creators to protect themselves and their art. I also wish they took the same care to protect their subjects when they’re in the opposite position of power.

I’m reading the wiki:

> Succession follows the Roy family, owners of media conglomerate Waystar RoyCo.

Is it based kn a true story, and does it officially name any real world character as its inspiration ?

It's one thing to take some liberties to draw the plot forward (like Alan Turing's brother "dying on a ship" in The Imitation Game), it's a whole other thing to portray someone that's alive and young as (at least partially) responsible for a crime they were fully acquitted of.

I'd say that's more of a conspiracy theory realm than artistic liberties realm.

Well the Imitation Game also erased the work of Polish codebreakers, falsely made it so Turing knew Cairncross was a Soviet spy when in real life they probably never even met, and made Denniston into a villain who wanted to destroy Turing's life work when in real life they had a good relationship, made Turing seem like he had Autism, and made up a plot about Clarke getting recruited by being good at crossword puzzles when in reality she got the job from by having excellent references. So I would say there is plenty to criticize at how it misrepresented people.

I can't stand historical dramas, because I feel like watching them is likely to make me less informed about the events they attempt to portray.

"Artistic license" in historical dramas feels very Orwellian to me.

At least that’s just entertainment. Journalism frequently mischaracterizes people and events just to paint a narrative.

Well, and facts aren't always known with certainty (as in this case) and their interpretation will vary based on who's interpreting.

>At least that’s just entertainment

I'm not convinced people see it that way, and as far as the director, he seemed to think his 'entertainment' was in fact accurate, or at least said so / was incentivized to do so.

Meanwhile the people who are depicted, you likely wont ever hear from.

Fortunately I learned this rather early, as in 6th grade some journalist came to our classroom to interview our teacher and us for some story.

I sat close enough to hear our teacher being interviewed, so it came as a shock when I later read the newspaper and saw my teacher being quoted as having said the exact opposite of what she actually said. And this was in one of the top three newspapers in our country.

Probably because of this behavior it was in the top three.

I'd argue that entertainment is much more likely to leave a lasting impression on people. Storytelling is far more effective at making people remember something than a well written article. If you were to quiz people about the life of Alexander Hamilton I suspect most people would give answers congruent to the musical and not what actually happened in the history books.

>this never happened.

This is just Hollywood trying to add drama for the sake of making the story more "interesting". Little thought is given to potential collateral damage to truth. All protected under the umbrella comment "based on true events".

There is a Richard III society, dedicated to rehabilitating the king after his unfortunate portrayal by Shakespeare.

I don't know if this is true but I really want it to be.

http://www.richardiii.net

Antonio Salieri should also get one of those. He was a pretty good composer in the scheme of things, and there is no evidence that he ever had anything against Mozart, much less did anything bad to him.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com