Sunday, July 26, 2009

"Based on true events"

There are few things that annoy me more than to see a preview for some movie depicting fantastical and supernatural happenings and then to see the trailer end with based on a true story or based on true events. These movies aren't based on "true events" - they're based on someone saying these are true events. The "truth" is that someone said it happened, not that it happened.

False marketing combined with promoting anti-reality based beliefs for profit just bothers me. Which is why I'm so annoyed with the commercials currently playing for the DVD of The Haunting In Connecticut.

It was bad enough the first time that this fraud was dreamed up, but to reward the hucksters with a movie based on their scam is just rotten.


Psyberian said...

Maybe you've mentioned it elsewhere HG, but aren't you missing a Golden moment to bring in Hume on this post? Hume made the point that if someone tells you that they witnessed a miracle, then the probability is that it is false. Everyone has witnessed lies, but few (if any) of us have witnessed true miracles. Therefore, a lie is a more likely explanation. (Of course, this assumes that the future will be like the past, however.)

Hume's Ghost said...

Actually, I don't think I've posted anything so far about Hume's seminal argument against revelation.

1. We have Hume's powerful a priori case against The Haunting.
2. Joe Nickell's a posteriori evidence suggesting it's a scam.

All in all, strong reason not to market the movie as "based on true events."