Some folks on Twitter have provided push back to the point where movies or TV which alter historical facts becoming an immediate turnoff (i.e., they turn them off). I respect that every viewer or script reader is different, and some may have more of an interest in historical accuracy. Also, some projects may warrant more focus on being historically accurate. One example which comes to mind is the movie Selma in which Ava DuVernay, knowing how important the subject matter was, strove to be as accurate in terms of historical details as possible. IIRC, she only created one scene which apparently did not happen -- a phone call between LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover -- but even that created controversy among historians.

That said, I go back to the OP and the point about the emotional truth of a story. One could argue that a filmmaker may have gotten all of the historical facts correct and missed the emotional truth of the story. So the issue cuts both ways.

Ultimately, it is up to the writer what they choose to do. Since movies are not created in a vacuum, but by studio executives and producers whose job is to make movies which are commercially viable, they will almost always be more focused on finding the movie, rather than something which is more of a documentary hewing closer to the facts.