Do you think a movie about E.L. James would be interesting

[ocnjgirl]

Originally Posted by ironpony

Oh I wasn't going to write it, I just thought it would make for an interesting movie perhaps, if done well.

Why didn't Zuckerberg sue then?

Cause there was nothing significant he was disputing, just things like the movie portrayed that impressing a girl was his motivation, while he states his motivation was internal. That’s not the same as making up entire segments of a persons life. Also the screenwriters have sources that told them in interviews these things happened, they didn’t just write fiction and present it as fact, their intention was to entertain while portraying an accurate portrait of how Facebook was started.

[ironpony]

Oh okay. But what about a movie like Hysteria, where they made up a love interest, with a made up subplot involving the court ordered surgery that never happened? Why is artistic license allowed there?

[hertfordshire]

Originally Posted by ironpony

Oh okay. But what about a movie like Hysteria, where they made up a love interest, with a made up subplot involving the court ordered surgery that never happened? Why is artistic license allowed there?

Well for one thing, everyone in the movie is long dead. And they weren't really famous while they were alive.

But again, why would anyone make a movie about James, and then completely fabricate everything about her because there is no interesting story to tell? Why not just create a fictional character?

[ocnjgirl]

Originally Posted by ironpony

Oh okay. But what about a movie like Hysteria, where they made up a love interest, with a made up subplot involving the court ordered surgery that never happened? Why is artistic license allowed there?

Hysteria never presented itself as a true story or biography. It’s not a movie about a man, it’s a movie about the invention of the vibrator. It’s based on real people and real events but not a film bio. Per the director himself the lead was based not on one man but several:


“According to Wexler, while the real-life Granville was the inventor of the device, her screenwriters employed a composite of several men to craft the male lead. “Hugh Dancy’s character is really three doctors who we’ve composited and then we’ve taken the best sounding name,” explains the director. “My understanding is that Granville invented the vibrator and then other doctors applied it to 'hysteria’.”

She even referred to the movie as a romantic comedy in that review. In none does he call it a bio or true story.

If you’re going to portray something as true, it should be pretty close to that. If you’re presenting as a bio, it shouldn’t have things made up. You can’t for instance purport to make a bio of The Temptations and portray one as a drug addict just to make it interesting if none were.

Everyone knows Dreamgirls is loosely based on Diana Ross and the Supremes, but they made up a lot, so instead of saying it’s about the Supremes they make up a group called The Dreams and let the audience draw their own conclusions.

But again if you think a movie about a drug addicted singer would be interesting, take someone who was a singer and also a drug addict and make Ray. There are plenty of authors with interesting lives, like JK Rowling who was in poverty before the success of that book. It seems like you don’t know anything about that other authors life or if it’s interesting at all, but then saying we’ll just make up her life story if it’s not and still call it a bio” You can’t do that.