Will Adultery Keep MLK Biopic Off the Big Screen? (drugs, radical, boycott)

[clevergirl05]

The highly anticipated biopic about the life of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is on hold because DreamWorks and Warner Bros (and perhaps the MLK estate) are not pleased with film director Oliver Stone's script rewrite (Oliver Stone Explains Why He Departed MLK Biopic - ABC News). The script, according to one of Oliver Stone's tweets, "dealt with issues of adultery, conflicts within the movement, and King's spiritual transformation into a higher, more radical being." (Jamie Foxx is scheduled to portray King and Steven Spielberg has signed on to produce.)

The King family allegedly did not like the script and the studios rejected "Stone's characterization of long-running rumors that King Jr. engaged in extramarital affairs." Stone tweeted:

"I'm told the estate & the 'respectable' black community that guard King's reputation won't approve it. They suffocate the man & the truth."

"I wish you could see the film I would've made. I fear if 'they' ever make it, it'll be just another commemoration of the March on Washington."

"Martin, I grieve for you. You are still a great inspiration for your fellow Americans – but thank God, not a saint."

Personally, I think the allegations of adultery (https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-r...red-the-dream/) are the number one reason a big screen biopic on MLK's life has yet to be made. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a great man, but he was still just a man; he was not a god and he was not a saint. He was a flawed human being like every other human being on this planet. All human beings are flawed. So what?

Do movie studios think that including adultery in an MLK biopic will somehow diminish MLK's accomplishments or do they think that including the open secret about his adultery will somehow diminish their profits (because black audiences will presumably boycott the movie if their "respectable community leaders" command them to do so)?

Make the movie, warts and all, please! Children may not be able to handle the truth, but most adults – including black adults – can actually handle the truth, even if it's an ugly truth.

[glass_of_merlot]

He might have been a bad husband but he fought a good cause. He was not perfect.

[desertdetroiter]

There have already been a million King movies anyway. Who cares.

[American Heathen]

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

There have already been a million King movies anyway. Who cares.

This. Also if they did some decent research they would find more problems with him than that.

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by American Heathen

This. Also if they did some decent research they would find more problems with him than that.

Such as...?

[Chimuelojones]

Originally Posted by American Heathen

This. Also if they did some decent research they would find more problems with him than that.

Anyone can produce any movie they wish. If there is a market for the "real history" MLK movie, then those that feel the need to make it are welcomed to do so.

[Supplies]

Originally Posted by American Heathen

This. Also if they did some decent research they would find more problems with him than that.

True, also All this fake fuss is just to promote the film anyhow

[carterstamp]

Nobody said MLK was a saint. The guy had feet of clay.

[MrClose]

Originally Posted by pch1013

Such as...?

Plagiarism, Communist, Womanizer, Drugs, Booze ..

Any questions?

[boxus]

I do not see the big deal. It is ridiculous to think people are infallible, and even more ridiculous to focus attention on such things.

Hold people to this impossible bar will result in society passing up well qualified people for, people who are not qualified worth the darn, but hide/not displayed/ never engaged in dubious activities.

This infallible trait has crept into history as well, with revisionist holding past leaders and notable figures to modern day standards, thus doing all they can to minimize their accomplishments.