Both movies have gone under a lot of debate owing to the content of the basic storyline that they follow. While The King"s Speech has a few historical facts, which have been spiced up adequately to suit the film makers to make it a bit commercially viable or whatever the reason might be, there is a sharp theory going around that certain historical facts should not be tampered with and thus the film makers should stick on to the originality of the story or the source.
The other movie in the top slot for the Best film category is The Social Network, which has been touted as a movie that does not have the utter truth been shown in the storyline. There are many, who are not just bothered with what the truth is and as long as the film was watchable and a bit entertaining it was just okay.
However, a certain section is well aware that whatever is shown on celluloid need not always be the truth. Certain liberties are indeed taken by the film makers to dramatize the entire gist of the story to make it popular with the audiences.
Yet another argument doing the rounds is that whenever an issue is handled in a movie there is bound to be certain half stories told which leave the audiences asking for more like in The Social Network, the life of the people concerned are dealt with in quite a brief manner. There are many reality based truths, which are not disclosed properly and certain questions go unanswered as history has not yet recorded certain facts as of yet. Thus, the movie leaves those issues regarding real people somewhere midway which is quite bewildering to most viewers.
Now, with such movies getting into top nominations for prestigious awards the question being asked is does it really matter? Well, there are other counter questions that go on to ask that what is more important for film makers-to win awards or to entertain audiences and to look for commercial viability of their movies? Tough ones there!