They say that the truth can be stranger than fiction, but that seldom stops studios from adding an embellishment or two when it comes to transferring truth to the big screen. Films purportedly "based on a true story" (or bearing the even murkier "inspired by true events") tread treacherous ground with film buffs, historians and purists: How far can artistic license stretch for the sake of entertainment? Do we eschew the nitpicky details of historical accuracy in favor of a good movie, or should filmmakers be beholden to every detail, regardless of how it paints their characters?
'The King's Speech' is the latest project to stir up such a debate (just in time for an Oscar smear campaign, the cynics among us note). 'TKS' leads the Oscar race with 12 nominations, and with increasing regularity, critics have been crawling out of the woodwork to point out the film's numerous historical inaccuracies, from Slate and The Daily Beast to The Wrap. But how much of 'The King's Speech' is fact and how much is fiction? And does it really matter anyway? Join us after the jump for our take.