Yes I agree with that completely in general. But there are ways of doing it that are better than others. Like Star Trek or Stargate both have completely fictional science - but they at least do some research to make it so that its not completely twisting what we know. With historical films or books there are ways they can be written where the details are all made up - but they are at least within the context of what happened. Or they can be made as complete fantasy just set in the loose context of what happened. But with films like Braveheart they are neither one nor the other. They are made as if they are a fair representation of what happened, when they are a deliberate distortion of the fundamental reality. Thats when I do have a problem.

With Dan Brown I'm more and more surprised how many people take what he writes about history and religion seriously. Its another Braveheart kind of thing where what should be taken as fiction in fact gets accepted (at least subconsciously) by anyone who doesn't know enough to know better. I guess its a question of artistic license and what that means. Like if you made a film that showed various people inventing the story of the Holocaust - I think that would be going too far. But if a film was made where Hitler had one that battle of britain and showed britain occupied by the Nazis - I don't see any problem with that at all. Does that make sense ?