...interesting as-is? I'm currently watching the 2010 version of Robin Hood, which is a ponderously long movie, by the way, and I notice that once again Hollywood has unnecessarily changed a historical detail to screw up what's actually a much better story.

Specifically, they changed how Richard I died from what was by all accounts an incident of great emotional power in which he was shot by a young boy whose family he had killed in battle, and as his dying act pardoned the boy and paid him what was a stupendous amount of money at the time, and then died in his mother's arms.

That's a much better death than "wine... argh!"

And it's certainly not the first time I've seen this. Gladiator could not have $#!+ more on Roman history if it had tried (maybe we just need to ban Russell Crowe from historical fiction movies). Commodus didn't kill Marcus Aurelius for command of the Roman Empire. Marcus Aurelius had every intention of seeing Commodus become Caesar, having effectively turned Rome over to him a full three years prior to his death, and Commodus didn't die in the arena. He was strangled to death in his bathtub by a professional wrestler he was having sex with. Tell me that wouldn't have been a more interesting ending to the movie.

William Wallace of Braveheart fame wasn't a commoner. He was a Scottish noble, and his father wasn't killed plotting against the king. His father was one of those traitorous nobles who sided with the king in exchange for land.

Benjamin Martin was a child murdering rapist (Mel Gibson seems to be another one we need to keep away from historical fiction)...


The list goes on and on.

Why do you think Hollywood is so intent on butchering really great history until all they're left with is a mediocre plot point, rather than use what is already there to tell an excellent story?