Mr. Hill, telling why he had to fiddle with facts, said: "The audience doesn't go to a movie for a history lesson; it wants entertainment. At the same time, they don't want something that trashes history; so it's a delicate line." Ny Times, December 5, 1993
It is a very delicate line. The line, unsaid, is "audiences want the illusion of something serious and historically accurate without actually having to make the slightest effort to learn anything or to actually think beyond stereo-types and cliches: we cater to the audience's prejudices; let's leave education to the schools." No no-- we say they want to be "entertained".
Firstly, the idea that maintaining a semblance of historical accuracy when using historical events to titillate audiences could cause boredom is utterly untrue. It's not boring: it's just not titillating and comforting.
Or I could say, "it's just entertainment". Not art. Not serious.
But that overlooks the fact that the changes made to make it more "entertaining" are often not related to action or visualization or sound or any of the aesthetic traits of the story. For example, the Hollywood film about the capture of the Enigma machine made the submarine American instead of British. Does that actually increase the entertainment value of the film? Not artistically. But it opens the film to an audience of small-minded parochial viewers who don't really care about history at all.