That's twisting the situation. I'm hardly saying gays should only be portrayed in a positive light. In this situation their gayness was a subject of mockery and it was clearly portrayed as being a negative trait.

"That's twisting the situation" implies some sort of intent to perform a takedown on you, and that's not what I was trying to do. I simply thought your first statement seemed extreme, but then you clarified it with the above statement, which was 100% reasonable.

But then you said this:

But his being portrayed as an eejit is part of the anti-gay thing.

This reads as though you mean to say that it is an anti-gay thing to portray gays as idiots. This is not necessarily true. A great number of eejits happen to be gay. I hate to say that and risk being labled as some sort of bigot, but idiocy runs rampant throughout humanity, regardless of gender, race, socio-economic status - or sexual preference.

Maybe it was irrelevant to the larger point of the movie, but I think it goes to show what a despotic bully Longshanks was.

I did agree that the movie was stacked against the British, as though the Scots were pure as the driven snow and the EEEEEEEVILLL British existed only to commit atrocities. History is rarely so one-sided.