Scott, the co-chief movie critic for The New York Times, said “Movies that are not documentaries are works of fiction, whether or not they deal with real events,” “The only people dumb enough not to understand this are certified intellectuals — journalists and college professors, mostly — who need fodder for columns or something apparently important but actually trivial to wring their hands about.”I take this to mean that its common knowledge that movies that say “Based on a true story” or “Inspired by actual events” are simply telling you upfront that the filmmakers created a story around a real event or a true story. The who, what, when, where and why aren’t always accurate, but the heart of the facts are there. Hollywood takes a lot of creative liberties. Take for example, James Cameron’s blockbuster, Titanic. Many hours of pre-production were spent on making the set historically accurate. From the wardrobe, to the tiniest rivet on the scale model ship they used. But do you really believe that the love story between Jack and Rose was a real event? No. That’s a creative liberty to push the story along. The words “based on a true story” give marketers a hook, something to grab ticket buyers looking for something different than the brands and pre-existing characters like Marvel, Lego and Star Wars. I don’t think that filmmakers have any pressure to make sure that the story they are telling is historically accurate. If they choose to do so, that’s great. I don’t think it