>>> If they have changed minds it’s weak minds. <<<
Given the results of the last presidential election, the presence of a lot of weak minds wouldn’t surprise me.
However, this point doesn’t address your false assertion that “there was no claim of truth” in the movie.
>>> No work of fiction no matter great (or in this case probably really bad) should be taken as a history lesson. <<<
Well, I believe that people SHOULD be nice to each other and that centralized governments SHOULD be careful about being too big or getting too powerful.
The historical fact that people many times AREN’T nice to each other — or that some writers and movie-makers play fast and loose with the fact/fiction distinction — has lead me to conclude that there is a big difference between what IS and what SHOULD BE.
Books and movies categorized as fiction have been and will continue to be considered as repositories of fact. Your wish as to what should be doesn’t change this; nor does it challenge the twisted little anti-Catholic/anti-Christian game that Dan Brown plays with his novels (and the movies licensed fom them).
Also, once again you do not address your false assertion that “there was no claim of truth” in the movie.
I haven’t read either of these books. I did see the first film (which was very bad) and don’t recall any ‘Based on fact’ title cards. I don’t know a single person who walked out thinking ‘Wow, it’s all true!’.
The idea that fiction should strictly adhere to historical fact has no basis in Western Culture. Shakespeare and Tolstoy took severe liberties with historical figures and events and so did many much lesser lights.