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.....><

@Ledbetter: Your example about Chernobyl is pretty close to what I'm going for with mine but the problem still persists. I mean, when you mentioned Titanic, I'm sure 98% (including Billy Zane) didn't happen, but there were people who died. How it got that way doesn't matter so much in the end. What I'm talking about, though, is fictionalizing the events of a hurricane and saying that people died in them, even when there were no reported casualties. Something like that will probably cause some logistical problems.

@Dreamer: Yeah, no historical movie is really accurate. If they were, odds are they wouldn't be nearly as interesting, I think. Either that, or it would have to be shortened because most people don't sit in a theater and watch people talk. They like explosions and all that good stuff.

@Stevie: That really doesn't help the problem at all. I'm going off hurricanes that hit New York in '24, '38, '56 and '80 (off-hand, I'm guesstimating on the last two because I don't remember specifically).

@AJR: JFK. Entertaining. NOT factual.

@Ledbetter (again): Use it to create entertainment. Basically, some of the story is cops linking murders happening during hurricanes and their belief that it'll happen again with an upcoming hurricane.

Good point AJR, guys. I saw JFK in the movie theater. Riveting. And yes, it pissed me off. A whole generation of Americans takes that stuff as history. Stone plays with the facts not just to entertain, but to serve his fantastical vision of the world.

Funny thing is, that I swore I would never see a Stone movie again. Then I saw his film  Nixon, of all things, at home, and it's absolutely brilliant. It really captures the paranoia and at the same time the humanity of Nixon. Gets the facts right too. People complained about the scene where he talks to Kennedy's portrait in the White House, but I thought that was brilliant, too. Nixon was obsessed with Kennedy.

It's tough to do history well in film, and now that I am trying to learn screen writing, I really appreciate how tough it must be to fit things into a 2 hr narrative.

A great movie is Bridge over the River Kwai. One of my favorites. But not even close to accurate, and in fact, is pretty racist. The idea that the Japanese couldn't engineer a bridge is ludicrous. Japan was already an industrial power. But for drama, and for exploring the theme of the British sense of duty and order and how that conflicted with common sense at times was brilliant. Plus, who can ever get that whistled tune out of their head!

You want to talk about altered facts, look no further than "U-571"... Lol.

Of course, they've admitted how they fucked that one up, but I just thought it was hilarious that they wrote it the way they did because they didn't think people would notice or care.

I've seen the film, but I don't know what the true facts were. I really don't remember the film very well.

Wouldn't it be cool if someone broke the mold and had the CIA be the good guys? I guess we have those Jack Ryan films, those are well done. The CIA obviously makes great bad guys, it's just become a little cliche.

Are the hurricanes really that important to you script? It has already been pointed out that you are fictionalising historical events already. If you are going to religiously stick to correct dates and times etc, you would be doing a documentary, not a screenplay. Concentrate on the 'drama' in your script, that's where the story should be. If it isn't there, then the hurricanes and dates etc is just fluff and it won't matter if the dates are correct or not, real or fictional etc. Cinema time is different to real time anyway.

People like it when the government is the bad guy. Makes things more fun, although I agree that it does become tired after a while.

Quoted from Eoin Are the hurricanes really that important to you script?

Very.

Quoted from Eoin It has already been pointed out that you are fictionalising historical events already. If you are going to religiously stick to correct dates and times etc, you would be doing a documentary, not a screenplay. Concentrate on the 'drama' in your script, that's where the story should be. If it isn't there, then the hurricanes and dates etc is just fluff and it won't matter if the dates are correct or not, real or fictional etc. Cinema time is different to real time anyway.

No, I know for yes, they're a major part of the script. That's why I'd feel bad about changing it.