They’ve been around as long as the film industry and the format would seem to be a winner: take a historical figure from sport, the arts, politics, or just ….history and tell their story. No problems with copyright unless you’re filming a published biography/autobiography and if the subject’s long dead, you’ve got carte Blanche. Biographical films also tend to be ‘prestige’ projects. A film about a worthy figure from history, if done competently, will automatically attract consideration by awards committees, who are always keen on ‘elevating’ subject matter. Problem is: perceptions of great historical characters change, screenwriters and filmmakers often have to ‘adapt’ the facts to make a commercial product and there’s also the fact that biopics tend to date very quickly. There have been some famous ones, but I can’t think of a single biopic that’s fondly remembered. And if anyone is tempted to say ‘Gandhi’ - I don’t think that IS fondly remembered. It’s dull as ditchwater and Ben Kingsley’s AA-winning performance represents a triumph of prosthetics/miraculous dieting rather than acting. Rock biopics, of course, tend to fall out of favour even more quickly, even if they’re initially well-received. Bohemian Rhapsody was huge a few years back, but who admits to liking it (or its ridiculous central performance) now? More recently, hardly anyone seems to have liked Ridley Scott’s overblown and unnecessary film about Napoleon (how many good smaller films could have made from the obscene amount of money that cinematic black hole swallowed up?).