Why Nearly Every Film Ends by Saying It’s Fiction

I particularly liked the use of the opposite statement in Fargo[0] despite it <i>not</i> being a true story.<p><i>This is a true story. The events depicted in this film took place in Minnesota in 1987. At the request of the survivors, the names have been changed. Out of respect for the dead, the rest has been told exactly as it occurred.</i><p>Which was later used in the Fargo TV series[1]<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fargo_(film)#Factual_vs._fictional" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fargo_(film)#Factual_vs._ficti...</a><p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fargo_%28TV_series%29#.22This_is_a_true_story.22" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fargo_%28TV_series%29#.22This_...</a>

&gt; <i>Irina Yusupov sued the studio, and the jury found in her favor, awarding her £25,000, or about $125,000. MGM had to take the film out of circulation for decades and purge the offending scene for all time.</i><p>I wish articles would make it clear if they are using inflation-adjusted figures or not. Looking at the source document, the above is not adjusted for inflation.<p>Therefore it&#x27;s $2,200,000 in today&#x27;s dollars[1]. A non-trivial amount even for a big studio.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;data.bls.gov&#x2F;cgi-bin&#x2F;cpicalc.pl?cost1=125000&amp;year1=1934&amp;year2=2016" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;data.bls.gov&#x2F;cgi-bin&#x2F;cpicalc.pl?cost1=125000&amp;year1=19...</a>

I was reminded of the Small Penis Rule after reading this.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Small_penis_rule" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Small_penis_rule</a><p>[2] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;1998&#x2F;10&#x2F;24&#x2F;books&#x2F;writers-as-plunderers-why-do-they-keep-giving-away-other-people-s-secrets.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;1998&#x2F;10&#x2F;24&#x2F;books&#x2F;writers-as-plunderer...</a>

I&#x27;d always thought the reason was obviously because someone lost a libel lawsuit over it. Read the article, and sure enough, that was it. Nothing strange about it.

&gt;It’s only recently that studios have relaxed the disclaimer to allow that certain films are inspired, in part, by real events—maybe that’s because, in 1967, Felix Yusupov finally died. Now, blessedly, you can say whatever you want about him.<p>An estate doesn&#x27;t have libel rights?<p>Edit: hm. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;media&#x2F;media-blog&#x2F;2014&#x2F;feb&#x2F;18&#x2F;defaming-dead-relatives-european-ruling-right-sue" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theguardian.com&#x2F;media&#x2F;media-blog&#x2F;2014&#x2F;feb&#x2F;18&#x2F;def...</a><p>Also, it was his <i>wife</i> that was libeled, so his death isn&#x27;t the relevant milestone here.

I&#x27;m missing the strange&#x2F;bizarre part. MGM, despite their own research, made up a rape between two people who never met in a film about people who were still alive. The alleged victim sued and won.<p>She&#x27;d still win today, with or without the disclaimer. Imagine some OJ movie where they decide to have a subplot about him molesting his daughters, for dramatic effect.

The problem is that the statement at the end of films is always a lie, even for fantasies.<p>There is a misunderstanding, mainly among people who write themselves off as uncreative, that creative people are endowed with a gift, where they can come up with stories out of nothing. The truth is, they are all inspired by past stories and experience, and characters are based on parts of themselves or relatives or friends or people in a newspaper.<p>There has never been a story created out of pure nothing, that is utterly original in every way, ever.<p>Everything is a remix <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;vimeo.com&#x2F;14912890" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;vimeo.com&#x2F;14912890</a>

I think the op overstates the power of these statements. Take the south park intro. It doesn&#x27;t provide absolute cover for libel. If they make statements about people that to a normal person&#x27;s understanding are not clear parody, they can still be sued. If it looks like Tom Cruise, and talks like Tom Cruise, and you tell the audience with a strait face that it rapes people, expect lawyers.

Does anyone have a better written version of this? The entire thing is distractingly clickbaitily written and has both not written enough about the subject, and paradoxically, written too much.

&quot;but MGM couldn’t do that after casting a real-life brother and sister in those roles.&quot;<p>Ha, if that was the actual logic then they deserved it.

&#x27;Nearly every film&#x27;? I can&#x27;t think of the last film I watched where I saw a disclaimer like this. Maybe I just don&#x27;t watch a lot of movies that could be interpreted as true, but this title seems hyperbolic.<p>Edit: it&#x27;s at the <i>very</i> end of most films.

Can we change the title to something less &quot;clickbaity&quot;? Is that even a word?