MovieChat Forums > The Revenant (2016) Discussion > Why can't they ever just stick to the tr...

Why can't they ever just stick to the true story?

posted 6 years ago by Coleburg83 (684)
28 replies | jump to latest

I don't get it. Hugo Glass's survival story is dramatic enough and not over the top. Movie also wouldn't be significantly too long.

Instead they got to add a half-breed son, over the top revenge fight scenes that didn't happen, people dying who were historical figures and the wrong historical figures there, cavalry massacres and excuses for the Indian attacks. Arikara treacherously attacked the trappers near their villages to get their pelts after agreeing to trade horses to them. Henry wasn't even there, Ashley was. Along with several other notable mountain men. And they lost 15 killed, not 33. Then a few more were killed in a separate Mandan attack a couple days before Glass was mauled. Later more Arikara slaughter two separate groups he was traveling with when searching for Bridger and Fitzgerald.

Personally I find the real story much better.

[–] Otter (24464) 6 years ago

The real Hugo Glass realized, when he'd tracked down the men he blamed for his injuries, that they weren't really evil and he let them go.

That would have made a more interesting and uplifting movie, but Hollywood doesn't want to fund stories of people who realize that revenge killings aren't actually a good idea.

[–] Coleburg83 (684) 6 years ago

He apparently forgave Bridger because he was a teenager and led by Fitzgerald. And Fitzgerald it's uncertain. He didn't just want to find him for revenge, but because Fitzgerald had his rifle. And apparently either he decided to forgive him due to religious convictions and Christian forgiveness or simply because Fitzgerald had joined the army and he would have been hanged if he did.

Here's an actual timeline of the real events: http://hughglass.org/timeline/

Tell me they couldn't have made a better movie with the real story and not the modern social justice themes.

[–] whynotwriteme (7745) 6 years ago

"Tell me they couldn't have made a better movie with the real story and not the modern social justice themes."

They already did way back in the early 70s. It's called "Man in the Wilderness".

[–] Stratego (30770) 5 years ago

Because the director just wanted to use the story to make a political statement. It's pretty disgusting.

[–] tph890 (489) 5 years ago

Why can’t they ever just stick to the true story?

BECAUSE THIS WASN’T A DOCUMENTARY

This was art, which is only an impression of reality.
It is JUST A STORY. And a beautiful one. Well, maybe beautiful, if you’re into lovely music and revenge odyssey’s. Also the cinematography is wonderful and the sequences are mesmerizing.

And there are movies that stick very close to the real events upon which they are based. This ain’t one of em. Oh well. Does that make the work less of an accomplishment?

[–] Coleburg83 (684) 5 years ago

It would have been a better movie based on the truth is the point. It's not like they had to change things to make it more dramatic. The truth was more dramatic.

[–] tph890 (489) 5 years ago

I agree that the truth is definitely interesting, and a fascinating chapter of early American history, which could be adapted into a great miniseries by artists more interested in the truth.
But this film was not interested in the actual historical events. The film went down the mythical route to tell its own story. They did not fail at telling a true story, they succeeded in creating a myth.

[–] brux (14768) 5 years ago

> They did not fail at telling a true story, they succeeded in creating a myth.

The word myth in your context is the same as lie. That is no myth ... no wonder Americans are so poorly educated in history and politics.

[–] tph890 (489) 5 years ago

I always pictured Myth as an exaggeration/alteration of truth, rather than outright lies. Fantasy seems more in line with the idea of ‘lying’. This film is indeed a mythical interpretation of factual events, in my honest and humble opinion. It is a dreamy vision that does not adhere to any historical truth and still manages to be powerful and emotionally resonant.
And you say ‘there is no myth’. What do you mean? Is your assertion that there has never been any sort of mythical tale in the whole history of man? That the idea of myth is a falsity, or a social construct of some sort? Please elaborate.
And regarding your poorly written parting quip: You don’t know anything about me, and I don’t know anything about you. Why do you assume to know my level of education? And what does it matter what country I was born in? Would you like to know the color of my skin as well? Provide you with a little more (historical) context, perhaps? Why insult an entire country when you can pinpoint your attack so precisely to us poorly educated commoners who obviously deserve your scorn?

[–] Stratego (30770) 5 years ago

I agree the truth was more dramatic. If you're going to change that much, then don't claim it's a true story. Just create an entire new story that's simply inspired.

[–] charliekelly (1018) 5 years ago

I absolutely despise this. You look up the real story only to find that about 5% of what you just watched was from the real event. I just recently saw Noe's "Climax" which had "you've seen a film based on real events" at the beginning. I look up the story to find that some dancers were spiked with lsd at a party once and "had a bad night".
None of the rest of it happened. And there's usually a greater divide than that, between the story and the truth. I was also very disappointed when I read about Glass' real story.

[–] Stratego (30770) 5 years ago

Now that's just stupid. I don't even get why it needs such a notice, what's the point?

I get artistic license, you need to fill up those 2 and a half hours with something. But the things that were changed in this movie just turned it into an entirely different story.

[–] charliekelly (1018) 5 years ago

Yeah, at least in "Climax" they didn't use the names of the individuals from the real life events, like they did in "The Revenant".

I think it's a cheap sales tactic that has carried over from the pre-internet days, by some miracle. I can't believe they still do it, with us having the ability to look up the real story. I guess most people just don't care to and take it at face value, so films continue to do it. The word of mouth stating "it's a true story, man..." is enough to get people to see it. I guess it's just easier for people to blindly believe something, and then help spread that something, than to take 5 minutes and read an essay/article on the true account. Unfortunately, this mentality seems to apply to a lot more than films, these days.

[–] Stratego (30770) 5 years ago

I absolutely hate the idea of people seeing these movies and thinking that's what happened in real life.

These days, I automatically assume that the majority of a movie based on true events is not true. When I hear there's a movie like that, I just look up the real story and most of the time won't even bother watching it because they ruined it again with made-up nonsense.

[–] tph890 (489) 5 years ago

Have any of you ever watched the film “Fargo”?

I mention this because that film pokes fun at the basic theme of this thread.

It starts with “based on a true story”...but it isn’t. And that’s the point. Movies are just stories, always, dreams transcribed into images. Maybe they are inspired by truth, but they are not documentaries.

If you really think that a “based on a true story” film is going to be—or is supposed to be—100% accurate, then you are kidding yourself, and you are missing out on the experience that a film should be.

Just go along for the ride.

[–] Stratego (30770) 5 years ago

Fargo is a comedy, not comparable. And the public's reaction to that movie exactly shows what the problem is with these untrue claims.

"Maybe they are inspired by truth, but they are not documentaries."

People really need to stop using this argument. It usually has nothing to do with the point being made. Like I said, I get artistic license.

If a film "based on a true story" differs as much from the true story as this film does, it shouldn't claim it was based on a true story. What's the problem with changing all the names and simply saying it was inspired by a true story? Apparently the moviemakers are not confident enough about the movie's own merits.

[–] tph890 (489) 5 years ago

“What's the problem with changing all the names and simply saying it was inspired by a true story”

That’s a good point. “Inspired by” is indeed more honest than “based upon” in some cases.

Most true crime movies do follow a series of events that really happened, “Zodiac” for example, and they actually earn the “based upon”.

“The Revenant” is definitely an “inspired by”.

[–] Stratego (30770) 5 years ago

Zodiac was indeed based upon a true story, unfortunately the main character in that true story was full of crock.

[–] tph890 (489) 5 years ago

Just out of curiosity, what are some of your favorite “based upon” movies?

[–] Stratego (30770) 5 years ago

The first that comes to mind is Goodfellas.

[–] tph890 (489) 5 years ago

Definitely one of the greats.

Some of my favorites are along the lines of “Apollo 13” and “Black Hawk Down”

Movies that are based on real events have always fascinated me, and made me research the actual events on my own, and I find there are always deviations from the truth, or certain small details that are excluded. Sometimes the timeline is a little off, or people will be combined into one character, multiple actions combined into one event, etc.

[–] Stratego (30770) 5 years ago

Yes, I also find movies based on true events interesting and I have no problem with the kind of things you mentioned. I just think this movie took it much too far.

[–] tph890 (489) 5 years ago

That’s fair.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

May I ask what you thought of "Apollo 13"?

Because I read the book it was based on after seeing the movie, and found very little deviation. It's one of the most historically accurate films I've seen... for what that's worth.

[–] Otter (24464) 5 years ago

Well everyone with critical thinking skills knows that "BASED ON A true story" means it's fiction, vaguely inspired by real life events. That "based on..." is a disclaimer, saying it's all a load of bullshit, but that they're trying to establish that the film is set in a realistic world.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brux (14768) 5 years ago

Great point, great question. They seem to go light-years out of their way to get stuff wrong so that Americans are stupid about history ... and that is true for virtually 100% of movies. Some Hollywood producer thinks they knew better.

I often think about how much greater TV / movies would be if all of the non-fiction stories stuck to the history and remakes only occurred when new information was uncovered. Then our media would be entertaining and a learning experience at the same time.

[–] janoss (214) 5 years ago

I read the real story many years ago in junior high, back in the '90s. I was so excited that the story was about Glass. I read that book cover to cover at least 3 times.

The real story is so much better than the Revenant. This was a make-up Oscar for DeCaprio. That's all. He should have won an Oscar for What's Eating Gilbert Grape many years ago. He could have won Oscars several times since then. Instead, they give him this one where he only has a few dozen lines all in. It's just him being scruffy and panting a lot.

Tom Hardy steals the show as far as I'm concerned.