when a movie is based on a true story but then alters the end...

It is really crazy that they alter what is real. It would not be called a true story if they make-up scenes. Some do it for cinematic purposes to attract viewership. They do this so that they could earn money. The sad part is it does not anymore reflect the lives of the personalities involved.

It's not just the false endings to true stories that drives me nuts, it is also when a movie is based on a book and yet the movie is completely different from the book, that is the other thing that drives me absolutely nutty.
In the case of a true story, I don't think that there should by any allowance of things to be changed. How is it a true story when things are changed. It just doesn't make any sense to me at all.
In the case of a book, I think that there could be some space for a screenwriters interpretation, but I still feel like it should be pretty true to the original written word.

I like biographical-type movies but there's one thing I've learned about all of them: Hollywood always spices them up for the ratings. Most "true" stories are only loosely based on true events. I think that, if they were totally true to the story, they would be quite boring, unless you are one of the people whom the story affected in real life. Then, I think, I'd be fuming mad!

I was very curious about Mozart after watching the movie, Amadeus. I got a book from the library about his life and so many of the real facts were far from how the movie portrayed them. Still, a lot of real facts were in the movie, like his crazy laugh, his drinking problem and his death.

I think that the only way to know the REAL story is to read about it in a book. Hollywood is all about profits and they'll do anything to make a real-life story more appealing.

When a movie is based on a true story, I send a friend to see it who has read the book, or heard the story. unless it is 100% historically accurate, and has the same ending, I will not go. When my teacher told me that Titanic was not historicically accurate, I was glad I didn't go see it.

I like how you think, a true story should always name the person who actually did the crime. I'm wondering what movie you were watching and why you think that the person named was not the actual person? Do you do this for a living? It just sounds like you have experience in this matter.

Well, it use to be "based" on a true story, not "a totally" true story, if you get what I mean... A base is somehting which is in the ground, where other things get build upon. Like the base of a house for example. So, just cuz the movie is BASED on a true story doesn't mean they can't add some fiction to it.

I agree with you on this generally, with the quick fix solution giving the killer in a nice clean and easily digested package whether true or not. It bugged me more before, now with these movies I always take them with a pinch of salt and if it really intrigues me will go and do the research and find out how much was embellished and why they chose that character to take the fall, normally a made up character that never existed either in real life or books.

There are always exceptions and the most famous of which is the stories of Jack the Ripper, that with pros and cons in relation to their validity give one or other as the culprit, since this is very old and there is no actual proof either way any plausible theory is valid. Then there is another category, like the organized crime stories, where everyone suspects one or other person for the crime, sometimes having confessions but since there is no physical evidence or with cases that are dismissed from court due to lack of evidence it means that only in fiction can those stories have a solution.