Stone’s ‘W.,’ nay; Stone’s ‘W.,’ yay

JOHN HORN’s “In Defining Bush, Oliver Stone Goes Where Others Fear to Tread” [June 29] is really, really boring. Yes, the far left in Hollywood and elsewhere can’t wait for Ollie to trash W., but at this point most folks are going to yawn.

The most amusing parts of Horn’s puff piece were the preposterous poses that the movie was: (1) certain to cause controversy; (2) Stone was trying to avoid controversy; and (3) that the studio was ready to stand up to controversy. Please spare us. The certain answers are: (1) no; (2) what a crock; (3) Lionsgate is praying for a national uproar like “JFK.”

Horn’s dutiful PR job is just one pebble in a desperate effort to create controversy and/or attract some sort of attention.

Why didn’t Horn ask Stone the obvious question? “Why should W. or any Republican, or realistically anyone else, care what a lightweight narcissist like Oliver Stone thinks?” W. is literally hated by hundreds of millions of people. In terms of public opinion, can it possibly get worse than it is now? W. is almost as unpopular as the press! The only difference is that, unlike the press, W. doesn’t seem to notice or care.

Erick Blair

Camarillo

I REALLY got a kick out of the letters defending Bush against Oliver Stone’s impending “W.” [Letters, July 6]. These people haven’t even seen the film yet and they’re rattled.

Mr. Bush will undoubtedly go down in history as one of our worst presidents, and the only reason he hasn’t lost his job is because the Congress is too wimpy to impeach. Good luck, Mr. Stone, I hope it’s a divine roast of W.

Victoria Grostick

San Luis Obispo