Hey guys, I'm not sure if this is the right forum to ask on, so please tell me to move it if i have to. OK, i was reading about 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' and i read about how it was marketed as a true story. It got me thinking, what are the rules regarding advertising for films? if 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre' was released today, would they be able to market it in the same way?
false movie advertising?
- Thread starter pebblesdundee
- Start date
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is based on a true story, all-be-it very loosely. Serial killer Ed Gein made clothes and furniture from human remains, the same as Leatherface and his family. Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs and Norman Bates from Psycho were also based on the same man, but those films were not marketed as being 'based on a true story'.
In answer to your question, I don't see why not. So many things occur in this world, that many of the films we see released today may well have some basis in fact. If there's even a slight link between your film and a real event, I guess you could market it as 'based on a true story'. I think the real problem would come if your story was so close to a real event that somebody noticed and took offence.
Incidentally, the movie 'Ed Gein', supposed based on the titular mans life story, has absolutely no basis in fact and is full of half truths and out-right lies, so much so that 'based on a true story' is really inappropriate for that movie. They even had the small, withered, old Mr. Gein played by Kane Hodder, a former Jason Vorhees!
In answer to your question, I don't see why not. So many things occur in this world, that many of the films we see released today may well have some basis in fact. If there's even a slight link between your film and a real event, I guess you could market it as 'based on a true story'. I think the real problem would come if your story was so close to a real event that somebody noticed and took offence.
Incidentally, the movie 'Ed Gein', supposed based on the titular mans life story, has absolutely no basis in fact and is full of half truths and out-right lies, so much so that 'based on a true story' is really inappropriate for that movie. They even had the small, withered, old Mr. Gein played by Kane Hodder, a former Jason Vorhees!
OK, thanks. I knew about Ed Gein, and i knew that it was based on him, but for someone uneducated the trailer does seem to be saying it's pretty much a crime watch reconstruction. But I might just be ignoran and gullible.
Fargo was also credited as being based on a true story, but it wasn't. Not even loosely, like Psycho and TCM. I don't remember if it was marketed that way, but if I remember correctly the opening titles indicated something like "This Is A True Story" when it absolutely was wholly invented.
Wasn't Blair Witch marketed as a true story with the movie supposedly being the actual found footage?
I think the difference with Blair Witch was that no one ever claimed it was 'based on a true story', it was played off as actual events, a real 'true story', backed up by the entire marketing campaign. Did anybody see 'Curse of the Blair Witch' (it's an extra on the DVD), the fake documentary about the fake found footage, that palyed as if it were real, with interviews with actors playing detectives, investigating the fake found footage as if it were real? Genius of marketing!
During its release, there were interviews with the directors of 'Blair Witch', where they freely admitted it was fake, the fact that they wrote and directed the movie clearly being an admission of this, so anybody could have realised that it was fake. The marketing campaign just made people think it was real. I know my sister didn't want to see it. She didn't like them profiteering off the disappearence of these kids!
During its release, there were interviews with the directors of 'Blair Witch', where they freely admitted it was fake, the fact that they wrote and directed the movie clearly being an admission of this, so anybody could have realised that it was fake. The marketing campaign just made people think it was real. I know my sister didn't want to see it. She didn't like them profiteering off the disappearence of these kids!
The reason that Fargo gets away with claiming the event truly happened is because of the All Persons Fictitious Disclaimer at the end of the film.
I would bet you a dollar that Blair Witch has one at the end as well, most people just don't read the credits
. Pretty much every major film has one at the end.
You could also argue that the 'based on a true story' element at the start of a film is a part of the 'piece of art', part of the fiction. Fargo was partly great because when it says these things really happened (not even just based on a true story, but that they actually happened), that alters your perception of the film, it changes the context, and thus, your experience. So it's part of the art.
Does that make any sense?
I would bet you a dollar that Blair Witch has one at the end as well, most people just don't read the credits
. Pretty much every major film has one at the end.You could also argue that the 'based on a true story' element at the start of a film is a part of the 'piece of art', part of the fiction. Fargo was partly great because when it says these things really happened (not even just based on a true story, but that they actually happened), that alters your perception of the film, it changes the context, and thus, your experience. So it's part of the art.
Does that make any sense?
I was thinking this as well. I think the difference could be in whether the phrase occurs after the movie has officially begun or before. If it is after, then it is just a part of the movie itself.
There are no laws about this. Not yet anyway.
If the "uneducated" go to a movie thinking it is an actual
recreation of the true events, then they (in my opinion)
are at fault. To the people marketing the movie. There is
a difference between a documentary and a fiction film
based on true events and a crime watch reconstruction.
But in the era in which we live I can see the government
stepping in to protect people and pass a law requiring
advertisers to be more clear in their marketing.
However, right now, it is legal (an in my opinion just fine)
to say a movies is based on true events even it it isn't a
faithful, scene by scene recreation of the true event.
If the "uneducated" go to a movie thinking it is an actual
recreation of the true events, then they (in my opinion)
are at fault. To the people marketing the movie. There is
a difference between a documentary and a fiction film
based on true events and a crime watch reconstruction.
But in the era in which we live I can see the government
stepping in to protect people and pass a law requiring
advertisers to be more clear in their marketing.
However, right now, it is legal (an in my opinion just fine)
to say a movies is based on true events even it it isn't a
faithful, scene by scene recreation of the true event.
My best friend is just the opposite of me when it comes to keeping up on movies -- he doesn't really care enough to read up on them. Anyway, he went into Blair Witch believing that it was actual found footage. And he watched it stoned out of his gillgourds. Needless to say, it scared the crap out of him.
What is allowed is not what is accepted
As Diretorik said above the law allows it worldwide, but does the audience accept it?
When we market out films there is always a thin line between what we can do what we should do. If before the release of a movie we claim that is based on a true story we have to be careful on the way we communicate that to our viewers because if after the press screening we get negative publicity about it from the press then our communication effort could be easily jeopardize.
Today the internet carries word of mouth at the speed of sound and, if the marketing is centred on ''it's a real story'', people could say ''why should I watch it if it is all fake?''
Of course certain films had a great success even by claiming something that wasn't true, I suppose then that the lesson is: be careful with it and lets master the why to hook the future audience in wanting to watch our movie even if what we claim it is an obvious exaggeration and possibly a complete hoax.
As Diretorik said above the law allows it worldwide, but does the audience accept it?
When we market out films there is always a thin line between what we can do what we should do. If before the release of a movie we claim that is based on a true story we have to be careful on the way we communicate that to our viewers because if after the press screening we get negative publicity about it from the press then our communication effort could be easily jeopardize.
Today the internet carries word of mouth at the speed of sound and, if the marketing is centred on ''it's a real story'', people could say ''why should I watch it if it is all fake?''
Of course certain films had a great success even by claiming something that wasn't true, I suppose then that the lesson is: be careful with it and lets master the why to hook the future audience in wanting to watch our movie even if what we claim it is an obvious exaggeration and possibly a complete hoax.
I think another example of this-but it gets REALLY Murky-"Fire In The Sky" was "based on actual events". Well, considering there's the whole debate about whether UFO's and Aliens exist or not-that's tough to begin with. I read later that some who were associated with the "incident" said that the incident-if it did happen-was really exaggerated (though how one could exaggerate an alleged alien abduction-I do know a couple of people who believe they were, whatever it was it traumatized them and they are "normal everyday" people-is beyond me)but that's getting OT.
So, how does one get to "based on a true story" when the nature of said story is already in question?
I agree though that one needs to be educated, and really in todays modern internet world-nothing can be taken at face value anymore IMO.
So, how does one get to "based on a true story" when the nature of said story is already in question?
I agree though that one needs to be educated, and really in todays modern internet world-nothing can be taken at face value anymore IMO.
to use the expression a lot of people on the internet
"/thread" cause that's about it!
)