MovieChat Forums > Houdini (2014) Discussion > Why so much fake information?

Why so much fake information?

posted 10 years ago by yastepanov
46 replies | jump to latest

Harry Houdini was a man who led a remarkable life. Why are they inventing so much fake history for the "History Channel?"

Houdini was never a spy, never ran off with a traveling magician, never hired a magic store owner, never did a bullet catch for the Kaiser, never got trapped under ice, etc. WHY MAKE ALL THIS UP?

The bullet catch is terrible. First, a steel bullet would've been needed for a magnet to retrieve it -- an "expert marksman" would have noticed. Moreover, to load the type of musket he had does not require ANY wad of paper (through it would be useful for a blank to keep the charge from shifting) and NO ONE would mistake a blank for a live round. (Especially if you had just fired a live round!)

This thing is so full of holes it would've leaked more than the milk can.

[–] daddie0 9 years ago

I agree. I came here to see how much of the story was "true" based on how incredible some of his feats were. I originally gave this series an 8/10, but when I realized that most of it was "rumors" or "things he bragged about" I gave it a 5/10, and that rating is only because of production quality.

The whole "it's a drama not a documentary" argument doesn't fly with me, and that's whether or not it was originally aired on the "History" channel.

As far as I'm concerned, if you are going to make a film about an historical figure and not use facts, you had better make it very clear it's fiction.

[–] davidwile 9 years ago

Hey folks,

With a sense of politeness, I would have to disagree with the recent posts of kryptoman102, and outofmana.

Kryptoman states: "I do not believe that this was made to be a documentary. Lies or no, this was one of the best movies (TV or otherwise). The point about making a movie even on the History channel is to hopefully get the viewer interested enough to go and search out the true history of the man himself."

To Kryptoman I would point out that drama is one thing and documentary is something else entirely. In the case of drama, it can be either fictional or entirely fact based. Both can be excellent drama. The problem for me is when real people or real events are "used" to tell what is really a fictional story that is completely misleading. There is a plethora of first hand documentation concerning Houdini, and it contains more than enough information to tell a great dramatic story that is based on that documentation. To suggest that erroneous and crappy dramatic stories are acceptable if it gets viewers to search out the true story is just plain silly. Drama is great. Just tell it as it is, and it will usually make for a pretty good story.

Outofmana states: "...in my opinion the History channel did what they could to make it interesting."

To Outofmana I would suggest the History Channel did not need to add anything to the Houdini story to make it interesting. All they really did is was to muddy up what already was a great story just waiting to be told. Making Houdini into a spy did not make the story interesting. It made it dumb, and it was not necessary.

The real Houdini story is most interesting and can be told based on existing first hand documentation. Anyone who cannot make an excellent drama from the life of Houdini should not be in the business of telling stories.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile