[bigbob]

In this case I agree with them. Regardless of whatever else he may have been or done, MLK did a lot more good in his lifetime than whatever any personal transgressions might have resulted in. I’d say the same if it was Ronald Reagan or MLK, no good purpose is served by debasing those historic figures in the way scum like Oliver Stone will do.

We all have feet of clay.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

But the point here is that the studio[s] give Stone carte blanche to delve into the “feet of clay” of conservatives and only step in when its a ‘progressive’ icon like MLK.

[Repeat Offender]

Yeah, we can't have any silly feet of clay details like CPUSA affiliations or a "Reverend" having an affair getting in the way of a good story telling or hero worship.

Happy community organizer day.

[informavoracious]

Stone managed to do a 3-hour movie on JFK that omitted Jack’s dalliances. Granted, it was about the assassination, but still he was presented in the beginning as an ideal husband, father, and president. Interestingly,with the negative portrayals of homosexuality in JFK, he probably couldn’t get THAT script approved today

[grania]

Tell it like it is or call the movie historically based fiction. Most movies that are supposed to be historical and advertise themselves as such pander to correctness. We don't need any more reinforcement of the notion that MLK was a saint.

Would we be any better of if Oliver Stone didn't tell the true story he did in "Born on the Fourth of July"?

[JimSp]

Your adoration of a man associated with communists is interesting.