The idea's from before!

The following are the ideas I've had about my project- Sir has reviewed them and as such I have taken into account his words of wisdom.  Here is the raw list. 

• To cut the length of viewing is bad, a historical piece of work shouldn't have a time limit.

• To have a motive in creating a historically accurate piece of work, such as profitability, can cause the piece to stray from the truth- especially as it may more romantically. (The early historian Thucydides had similar fears that his work would not be romantic because he wanted it to entirely truthful.) (SEE HAYDEN WHITE - emplotment. That's for me to see, fyi.)
• Other goals include: Entertainment to achieve box office ratings and good reviews. This leads to a modern cinema film style where a build up, climax and decline are put in place even in spite of real historical events that may not follow that particular pattern.
• History should follow the course of events that lead to a crisis or single event to describe how this event came to be and was caused. (The causation of the crisis in the films is highly restricted and limited, perhaps, not even addressing some causes at all.)
• As such, to view the crisis in isolation is to cut it off from it's own history, making it incorrectly displayed and largely misleading. 
• The use of a protagonist in the films creates bias and places the protagonist, in TD, in situations he otherwise may not have been in or simply did not happen. He (they) did not have a major role in the event , he had a political advisory position- he never sources any secret files nor addressed any military pilots directly as TD would have you believe! 
• Dramatic license... Yeah, needs some work, it has its benefits but I feel it has no place in history. 
• TD doesn't show anything but American perspective. Mono-perspective is dangerous! 
• Emotions feature in cinema.. Gonzo history! Creates one sided empathy!
  More to come in next post or comments! Feel free to review and comment!

For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

 So, I've been reading various web sources regarding both films and it was interesting to find some very different contrasting opinions.
  I also looked in to post modernism with regards to history as I believe that's what I missed from class last Thursday. I found it hard not to be critical of statements that conclude that nothing is true. Mainly because that would mean the statement itself is either true making itself not true or false making it again false.... Do you follow or I am just being overly-critical? Though, I found postmodern views on history enlightening at some points! I like how they think truth is relative and needs to be kept in context and that absolute truth is obviously impossible- it all makes sense. I don't, however, see history as fiction in it's entirety.. I think history when based on sources of fact and objective consensus holds some level or degree of truth as a social science (shoot me now!) but that is a matter of interpretation and of course interpretation in history can not be distinguished from fact now can it.(no really, can it?)
Anyway, correct or comment on any and all of that if need be! It will help me in my understanding of what I've missed.
 Moving right a long...  So I get lots of ideas about my project but I never remember them so I've started to writing them down- pen to paper sort of thing- well I use a pencil but you get the idea. It would be cool if I could get some help going over them, filtering and refining them! Some additions to the idea's list would be great too. ;)
I'll post the list of ideas once I've reviewed them- hopefully with your help! That's you Sir!
Thanks for reading.