You could argue that what Randall Wallace was doing in Braveheart was an attempt to make the audience focus on the abstract values that William Wallace was fighting for. Given the altruistic bent of society, had he started fighting “just” to protect his wife, a large part of the audience could dismiss the abstract value at stake by saying that “if he didn’t have this particular pretty girl to save, he wouldn’t be doing this; there’s nothing heroic about that.”

It’s wrong, but small-minded people constantly do this sort of reductionism. Remove the immediate reducible object, and they are forced to complain about even sillier things (as they do: witness all the people who point out that Wallace was fighting against one king in favor of another, and that this somehow totally negates the idea of freedom in the film).

That said, Gladiator was pretty flaccid, for pretty much the reasons you state.

I agree with Ryan, “Seems like the writers are uncomfortable with the hero pursuing selfish values”. Hollywood writers are uncomfortable with (and unable to fathom) the idea of fighting for abstract values at all- with one exception.

Note that in recent war movies such as “Saving Private Ryan” or “Black Hawk Down” the protagonists express ideas like “in the end, you just fight for the guy next to you” (I’m paraphrasing), but there is no explanation of why the protagonists or the guy next to him are having to fight at all. To the writers, it seems that they are just helpless characters who find themselves in a typically senseless existential quandry with no choice but to engage in an ultimately futile conflict. The idea of fighting for freedom and against dictatorship is never expressed – I suspect because the writers hold the view that it is naive or unsophisticated to even pretend to be fighting for an idea.

When heros are allowed to fight for an “idea” or “morality”, as in the ubiquitous adaptations of comic book stories, the only idea they are allowed to fight for is the morality of altruism. In the much praised “Dark Knight”, for example, Batman refuses to kill the Joker, even though the Joker is clearly a psychotic who delights in killing others – thus allowing the Joker to kill the woman Batman supposedly loves. Even after her death, Batman is too “idealistic” to kill, thus ensuring that even more innocents will be killed in the future. Even revenge is not allowed in the morality of self-sacrifice.

There are countless examples of this. I remember as a child being bewildered with how John Robinson could allow his family to be constantly jeopordized by the evil machinations of Dr. Smith on “Lost In Space”. I knew that it was immoral for a father to allow a mortal danger to repeatedly threaten his family, yet the show portrayed the father as a hero. It was a bewildering contradiction. I much prefered the original pilot episode, where there was no Dr. Smith and the Robinson battled the perils of space itself.

Countless examples of these same two patterns could be cited, but the point is that contemporary screen writers sneer at and reject the idea that any abstract value is worth fighting for if it will benefit the protagonist. Only when the abstract value involves self-sacrifice and pointless suffering is it allowed.

This world view makes watching contemporary films a disappointing, irritating and frustrating experience at best and unbearable at worst. Of course, many people have the same reaction. If some screenwriter (Ron, I hope), can break through the seemingly impenetrable barrier of monolithic group-think that dominates Hollywood and actually get a movie made with a real hero, the film will be a smash hit. There are millions of people for whom contemporary films give no satisfaction at all longing for an alternative.