They got it wrong...

I know alot of people have probably said this, but, this film took alot of liberties with what really happened.
I live, like, 20 minutes from Plainfield and, much like everyone else around here, the tale of Ed Gein is a well known one; many of us have been told about Ed Gein since we were little. Our grandparents knew Ed, some of our parents were babysat by Ed and other friends and family had talked to Ed many a time when he was out and about.
Two of my friends grandfather's were on the scene as police when Ed's house was searched and they have told us some of the things they discovered there and the like.
Basically, what I'm saying is that what all happened is well known around here - I mean, come on. We're a small community, the littlest bit of gossip makes the rounds quickly. A well known guy hangs up a woman in his shed and guts her like a deer? You can imagine how quickly that made the rounds that weekend.
So, knowing all this stuff, while I watched this film - and basically any of the other attempts at an Ed Gein movie - I'm confused and perplexed by how they went about the storyline. A good majority of things in all the actual movies made about Gein are completely false or trumped up to be something they aren't. This movie, for instance, had about 98% of it's info wrong or made up. Actually, that same percentage of falseness could be used for any of the Gein films that have been made - alot of the events portrayed in the films are complete bunk.
However, I do understand why a movie studio would take the story of Gein and "sensationalize" it, depicting Gein as some kind of slasher movie killer like Jason from Friday the 13th or something, or why they would make up events that never happened; it's because of money.
No matter what, a movie studio's major reason for making any movie is so they can make a profit - that's the bottom line. It's a business, after all, and business companies are started in order to make money.
So, a movie studio would look at the story of Ed Gein and think, "Yeah, it's pretty good, but, we're not going to take a chance on it the way it is. Sure, people may come to see it, but, they also might not, so, we're gonna need to beef it up by making Ed a slasher like Leatherface and have this happen and this, too. If we toss in all this stuff, perhaps it will lure people in and we'll make a bigger profit."
This I can't really argue with, cause that's the purpose - to make as much money as possible. Heck, if it was my company, I'd probably do the same thing.
But, it's just kinda frustrating cause people see these movies and think that's what really went on. They're getting the wrong info.
I do give credit to this movie for it's casting of Steve Railsback as Gein, though. He had the look and mannerisms pretty good. Railsback was probably the only good part of this film.
At least this film got that part right, unlike "Ed Gein" which has Kane Hodder as Ed - what the hell?!? Hodder is a huge hulking man of wrestler build, whereas Gein was a small, skinny little guy who appeared weak and almost feminine. But, that casting is the least of the problems with that film.
If you really wanna know the true story, go to the library and check out the books or take a peek at the A&E biography of Gein on youtube. Don't take any of these films as truth.