I'd like to address an issue, which comes up from time-to-time in the reenacting community: historical accuracy in feature films. Mention "The Patriot" in any gathering of Rev War reenactors, and you'm generally hear a collective groan, followed by a long string of complaints and mockery. I've done a bit of it, myself. However, I am not only a reenactor, I'm also an experienced Hollywood Propmaker, Modelmaker, Carpenter, etc., so I have a fair bit of experience on both sides of the debate. We reenactors do a lot of research, and we value others' efforts to improve and promote historical accuracy. It's a central mindset in our hobby, and a mark of "professionalism". We tend to expect others, including Production Companies and Film Crews to respect that philosophy, as we do. What we forget, is that an accurate historical story isn't always entertaining on the Big Screen: in "Braveheart", William Wallace was a kilted "wildman", whose rebellion laste months, maybe a year or two, and in the end, he outlived his enemy, and justice and freedom prevailed. The real story is one as much of politics as of heroism, and Wallace's enemy. Edward the Longshanks outlived him, and his son, in turn, sat the throne for 18 years. The story was dramatically changed, to make it more compelling and dramatic. Remember, Hollywood's job isn't relating fats: its job is to put as many butts in theatwr seats as it can, by telling thrilling, exciting, and entertaining stories. Hollywood WILL changw the storiesq to make thwm more dramatic and compelling. If accurate history conflicts with that storytelling, then it gets tossedq. This frustrates reenactors, who often know more of the story than he original participants did,and who want accuracy, but we're the minoritty, in this. Most moviegoers want entertainment more than accuracy, and it's Hoolywood's job to give them that.