Totally disagree....
I fully realize this is a movie -- but that doesn't give the writers an automatic pass to misrepresent things.
When you make a movie about an event that happened far in the past, it's one thing. All the people you could have consulted to get the facts are dead. Your job a a movie-maker is to read the information you're able to get and to imaginatively fill in the blanks.
If you have no interest in making the effort when major characters in your movie are alive and well, and could simply be interviewed? That's ridiculous and ruins the quality of the production, IMO.
And sure, there's such a thing as "artistic license". But the same people who hide behind that as an excuse for laziness in researching how to make the movie portray events or people accurately turn around and slap, "Based on a true story!" banners all over the place. IMO, you can't really have it both ways. If you want the sales it generates to promise your movie portrays real events or people, you either portray them realistically or your film is that much worse for not doing so.
People need to realize that a movie like this is a representation of what happened and NOT actually what happened. Throw in creative license for entertainment purposes and you have a movie that will probably be pretty good.
Woz needs to get that through his head before he starts shooting his mouth off.