I have a script I've been working on that takes place in Manhattan and has hurricanes as a integral part of the storyline. However, to make the story work, I have to re-write history to have particular hurricanes happen on particular dates. I really didn't want to do that because it takes away some of the effect of the story, but I wouldn't be able to do it otherwise. What do you think? Should I do it the way I intended or try and make it more factually accurate?

I say re-write history. Make it your own. i usually try to create my own worlds with some logistics involved.

Gabe

Not even sure the original question makes sense - isn't it a fictional story by definition once you've sufficiently altered the facts? In other words, how can you claim it to be a true story when there's an obvious element of fictionalization?

Let me explain what I mean a little better, then. I'm not trying to write a true story, but rather, I'm making a fake story happen around real events.

Basically, I'm making a claim in the story that murders took place during particular hurricanes that have happened in New York. None of the murders actually happened. I'm fine with doing that, but I also want to claim that a couple of the hurricanes were of a higher category than they were in real life and happened during certain years.

That's where my problem lies, where if I'm changing that much of the real events, I almost want to claim it as a fictional city. But, if I did that, I'd lose some of the locations that would be of interest in the script.

I think this post made it more confusing, but it's kind of difficult to explain.

Make it fictional.

Well, in that case, thank you both. The most evil words I could think of, but it is probably the best way to go about it. After all, Se7en did it, so why nor?

I have a degree in history, so it has always been kind of a pet peeve of mine to have historical accuracy in films. But my position has evolved a bit recently. Inglorious Bastards is most responsible for that evolution.

He's what I prefer: if the audience knows that a movie is not meant to be taken as real history, then it's ok to play with the facts if it supports your story. This to me is in cases where the movie is obviously meant to entertain, not educate, or even make a larger point. So something like Bastards, or Cowboys and Aliens, or some of the movies based on comic scripts that take place in a certain period.

If a movie is meant to educate or make some kind of general point, like say Nixon or Hoffa, or Peral Harbor, it should get the historical facts as close to accurate as possible.

A movie that really annoyed me in this regard was Last Samurai. It absolutely butchered historical accuracy in order to impose some Left wing fantasy vision. At least the Left wing fantasy in Avatar takes place in the future, so can't be disputed.

An other thing to keep in mind is how far you're going back in history. If you're going to have a movie about a great hurricane in 1974, there should have been one then, since a lot of folks are still alive.

If you give more details on the story, I'd be happy to offer more specific opinion.

EDIT: I wrote this after your original post, and I see you have replied already with more details.

It's a combination. I was going to use real hurricanes as they fit the timeline but where I was getting hung up were the murders. Most had no casualties so that makes it a little difficult.

I think I'll just end up going with a fictional city so I don't have to worry about little things like that. Thank you, as well.

You could consider blizzards, Blonde. New York gets it's fair share of those. Or, you could link the killer to any historical storm or disaster in New York, and then have the one in your story be a present day hurricane. I don't know if this killer is supernatural and goes back in time. New York even had a tidal wave in historical times, but before the arrival of white men and records. They know it from sediment studies.

There's a particular reason why it's a hurricane. Blizzards just don't work out the way they should. And, it's not actually a killer. Like I said, difficult to explain. My mind's already been set on fictional and I'm ok with that. I just have to work around some of the small things I set up in a different way.

I wrote a script where CHERNOBYL was destroyed by a russian home grown terrorist. The event happened but on my own terms.

I doubt TITANIC actually had a piece of jewerly an old woman threw in the ocean either.

Movies are FULL of events that occured only with a writers twist attached.

Shawn.....><

Hey Blonde,

Hope this is in line with your question but this thread is topical for me. My OWC had a fictional story on D Day and had a lot of historical accuracy ( d day itself, the specific church, the parachutes landing in the town, holy spring outside) but I changed a few points such as; the cemetery is not outside the front door, there is no crypt and on the night there were germans in the tower ( not in my script).

I thought it was fine to push the facts. However, there must be a point whereby if you promote a real scenario that you are careful with changing some details. Having said that, can we even name a historical film which is really true? I watched the longest day the, well, other day and whilst it tries to be true it don't half have a loads of nonsense in some respects ( eg romantic conversations about how this will be the most famous day etc etc).

In short, I don't think you should worry too much about detail. Well, I would say that wouldn't I!

All the best.

Mr B, why not set it a couple of years in the future?

Hey Kev, if you have a degree in history then I'm sure Stone's JFK really drove you nuts, huh?

He makes Garrison out to be a saint when he was really a pr1ck, and very little of that "trial" happened the way he said it did.

Problem is that now that Stone has committed it to celluloid, people actually think that his movie is one of the possible explanations for a conspiracy...

AJR has a good point.

Is it your intention to redefine history or simply use it to create entertainment?

So many movies have taken history and rewritten it rather than used it as a back drop.

JFK is a great example.

Shawn.....><