How true is this true story?
How accurate is this movie? I understand that some things in movies need to be spiced up but some storys lose their quality if they are too spiced up.
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Eddie the Eagle (2016) Discussion > How true is this true story?
It shows how positive a person Eddie Edwards is that he endorses this hugely embellished, largely made up version of his life. Personally, I wasn't a fan of Hugh Jackman's character (which didn't exist) and his cliched story arc nor the two dimensional portrayal of his dad (who in real life was very supportive) saying something like "oh god, he's rubbish, he'll break his neck" or "tell him to come home and do some plastering" every time he was on screen. I think they could have cut down on the hamming up and embellishments quite a lot.
I never get why Hollywood has to take so much artistic license with what are good stories in the first place.
Regarding your not "getting it" and Hollywood embellishments, I am reminded of the credit, "Written by William Shakespeare with additional by Sam Taylor".
On the one hand, it's possible to presume that Hollywood has the arrogance to believe it can always "improve" the story, and on the other, I often wonder how much "job creation" goes on in Hollywood. You only need to look at recent conversions from successful Brit TV progs like "Life on Mars", "The Office", "Prime Suspect" etc to wonder why the original could not have been served up in the first place. They even tried to rewrite "Fawlty Towers".
When I look at US TV progs, I often note the number of "producer" credits. The Simpsons, which lasts about 23 minutes in total, frequently has 16+ for a cartoon. Think about it! It's a cartoon. They need a scriptwriter, film cameraman and cartoonist, and that's your essential staff. No lighting crew. No Luggage Crew. No acting coaches etc. What can all these producers be doing? My suspicion is that when Hollywood gets it's teeth into something, it becomes a bit like a mafia building site, and the first thing they so often need, is a scriptwriter whose role is so often like Sam Taylor's.
I read the book. The experiences of Eddie are much different than those depicted in the movie.
Ranb
Don't know if you've read already or not, but this pretty much sums it up. I just watched the movie tonight. Don't actually have to much of a problem with what they changed.
http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/eddie-the-eagle/
I watched a few Youtube videos of him (and read his Wikipedia) and learned two things that differed from the film:
1) He did not attempt the 90m for the first time at the Olympics. He'd done it before.
2) They did not change the Olympic qualifying rules until AFTER he'd competed in the Olympics (unlike in the film where they did it prior).
Oh, and a couple other things: He did not sit up there forever getting up the courage to ski down the 90m. Nor did he almost lose his landing w/ his back scratching against the snow. That was all done for Hollywood dramatic effect.
Nearly everything is made up. But he was from England. He did break the English record. And he did look funny and was much worse than all the other jumpers. Besides that it's pretty much a made up story.
shareLike many biopics, there is embellishment to make the movie entertaining. Eddie has said that about 5% of it is accurate. He was a capable competitive skier, not some incompetent ne'er do well as was seen in the film. He didn't go to Germany to train, but Lake Placid, NY where he was trained by two American coaches (One of them said he was more like an albatross than an eagle lol). He had been in previous competitions before and had done 90m jumps several of times a day.
With that being said, I thought it was still a fun and inspiration film. Eddie was the definition of the Olympic spirit: someone who competed for the love of the Games rather than medals or fame. And that is why we all fell in love with him. He wasn't a finely tuned, world class athelete. He was an everyday person, just like one of us.
MM
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a film being embellished.
It's based on a true story and if people like the story or more important the person that it is a biopic of, then they can go away and investigate further.
Hell, I'd be encouraged to purchase and read his book after seeing the film. So, I look at films being a short and sweet taster for further investigation by the audience if they wish.
I really enjoyed the feel, the music and the look of the film. It highlighted personal achievement, no matter how small, compared to global domination and like Cool Runnings told a nice story that was about the taking part and competing rather than the winning.
Small moves Ellie, small moves