There's a running joke amongst film buffs that “based on a true story” is just an excuse to introduce the most garish incidents and coincidences into a narrative that would never be tolerated in a work of pure fiction under the pretense that ‘it really happened’. I still maintain that the historian and the dramatist work with different tools and should not be held to the same standard.
“I still maintain that the historian and the dramatist work with different tools and should not be held to the same standard.”
I agree. Also, your statement about ludicrous stuff being included in “true stories” under the armor of “it really happened” is quite accurate.
“You can’t make this stuff up!” is a justifying cry I have heard many times...