While I agree in theory, Quartz, and try to encourage dissenting views, the problem here is that “more entertaining” is a value judgment, and is hard to support other than by claiming “I liked this” and “I hated that.”
Let’s get specific: in “A Beautiful Mind,” director Ron Howard suppresses any implication whatsoever that his protagonist was bi-sexual, a marital philanderer, had kids out of wedlock, etc, presenting him as a loyal, straight family man who survives his mental illness through the steadfast love of his wife (whom in real life, he got divorced from, and later re-married.) This is an interesting problem, actually, because there are plenty of sensible, artistic reasons for eliminating all this messy stuff from the narrative, some of which is actually supported by LGBT critics, who want no association with mental illness and claim Howard’s decision to distort and over-simplify the character’s sexuality is beneficial to the LGBT community. But someone who claims that it was “more entertaining” to see Russell Crowe playing a straight guy, or that “people wouldn;t be entertained” by a picture about a bi- character ,or some such are just being lazy, IMO: how would you quantify such an argument? Even if you could, wouldn’t you just be making bigoted statements about the preferences of unenlightened people? Wouldn’t you find far more substance dealing with the issues here rather than the unsupportable opinion that something was more or less entertaining, especially in contrast with a version of the film that never made? I mean, more entertaining than what? Maybe Russell Crowe having gay sex would have been extremely entertaining–how could this possibly be supported factually?