I haven’t read either of these books. I did see the first film (which was very bad) and don’t recall any ‘Based on fact’ title cards. I don’t know a single person who walked out thinking ‘Wow, it’s all true!’.
The idea that fiction should strictly adhere to historical fact has no basis in Western Culture. Shakespeare and Tolstoy took severe liberties with historical figures and events and so did many much lesser lights.
>>> I did see the first film (which was very bad) and don’t recall any ‘Based on fact’ title cards. <<<
As for me, I read the book and didn’t see the movie. The cover of my book says “Now a major motion picture.” When we have a media culture where a book and a licensed movie (or vice versa) are out simultaneously, to claim or imply that the two are distinct and don’t “cross-pollinate” each other seems short-sighted.
>>> I don’t know a single person who walked out thinking ‘Wow, it’s all true!’. <<<
Well, Pauline Kael once wrote that she didn’t know anyone who voted for Nixon back in ‘72. It all depends who you associate with, I suppose. Consider yourself lucky! I wasn’t — I had work associates who had read the book and seen the movie and had swallowed whole a lot of the “facts.”
>>> The idea that fiction should strictly adhere to historical fact has no basis in Western Culture. <<<
Although this idea has not been brought up in this thread until now, I would have to agree. Unfortunately, it’s an idea that is tangential to the arguments I’ve made so far.