If it's crap ... We'll tell you
This is a question that Ive thought about for quite a while now. Recently, I saw Ed Wood again, and despite the fact that it fictionalizes alot of Wood's life (his relationship with Dolores, it underplays his alcoholism, it glosses over a considerable amount of details concerning Bela Lugosi), I still adore it and consider it an underrated classic.
On the other hand, there's Patch Adams. Unlike Ed Wood, which had managed to capture the optimism/denial and spirit of its central character despite glancing past some areas, Patch Adams fictionalizes just as much, if not more, of its subject matter and resulted in a preachy, self indulgent, and downright insulting contradiction to the real Hunter Adams.
I know biopics don't have to be as accurate as documentaries, but at the same time, should they follow more closely to the subject's life? What if Ed Wood had followed more closely to Rudolph Grey's biography Nightmare of Ecstacy (which i understand is compiled of contradictory interviews, but nonetheless provide a more factual, even uncomfortable insight into Wood's life)?
So, I put it to you: How much do you think biopics can get away with? How much truth do you prefer to see in biopics?
It depends on the subject they are doing a biopic on and whether the true story is engaging. I mean, there are historical figures I like, but some of them have RL stories that are unremarkable or don't have enough material.
For me, it's on a case by case basis, some biopics can pull inaccuracies off while others don't.