|
|
Post by THawk on Mar 12, 2017 3:09:19 GMT
A lot of critically acclaimed films these days are either adapted from some previous source material, or "based on a true story" kind of thing. Which is fine, there are indeed many fantastic movies from this broad category. But in general, isn't it more impressive when a film is just as good, however you want to define good, but is an entirely original creation, birthed directly from the screenwriter's imagination? Not to disregard the imagination and hard work that is required from "true story" films, but when you have to completely come up with the characters, the meaning, the purpose from scratch, that to me is talent of a whole higher level. Yet, I don't believe the general film crowd shares that view, or really cares too much for that distinction?
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Mar 12, 2017 5:06:43 GMT
Personally... i think movies 'based on a true story' tend to get a inflated score, especially if the movie itself is decent enough, but personally i don't really care much about that as movies are not suddenly going to be more entertaining just because it's based on a true story.
but i have a feeling that's partially what gave Hacksaw Ridge (2016) it's inflated score (8.2/10 average currently) is people seem to be a sucker for those kinds of movies and that whole true story stuff etc further inflated it i think.
but more specifically about what the OP asked... i don't really have much preference either way as certain types of subjects tend to be better than others in general as i am sure we all have genres that tend to output more higher quality movies than others do and whether something is a true story or not ain't really going to have much effect here, at least not for me. but with that said... it can be cool at times to see something play out in a movie that happened in real life but it's hard to say what actually happened vs how much of it was inflated/exaggerated for dramatic effect.
|
|
