Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Charlton Heston's Impact On Sci-Fi

Posted by Zonk on Sun Apr 06, 2008 06:40 PM
from the damn-dirty-apes-wouldn't-keep-their-paws-off dept.
An anonymous reader writes "As you're probably already aware, Charlton Heston passed away yesterday. Wired has a piece looking back at Heston's extremely notable work in the sci-fi genre, with roles in films like "Planet of the Apes" and "Soylent Green". 'Heston also roared out some of sci-fi's greatest and most memorable lines, bringing his macho swagger and over-the-top intensity to the screen in movies like 1973's food freak-out flick Soylent Green and the Planet of the Apes series. In a pivotal scene from 1968's Planet of the Apes (see clip), Heston's character, time-traveling astronaut George Taylor, utters the first words spoken by a human to the simian rulers of a bizarro future Earth: "Take your stinking paws off me, you damn dirty ape!'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Yeah, Heston! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by morari (1080535) on Sunday April 06 2008, @06:41PM (#22983492) Journal
    It's hard to get much better than Planet of the Apes (even the sequels were decent). Heston was decidedly great even in his Biblical films though, such as the Ten Commandments and Ben Hur.
    • Re:Yeah, Heston! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Alan Partridge (516639) on Sunday April 06 2008, @06:44PM (#22983532) Journal
      Yep, he was great. Let's not forget the chilling Omega Man, either - one of my all time faves.
        • by Vectronic (1221470) on Sunday April 06 2008, @08:15PM (#22984096)
          I searched and searched, and I just could not find the movie where he played the "Dog Fucking Fag"...

          If you are so Anti-Heston, you could at least explain why you are... such, you are Pro-Gun Control, or Anti-Biblical Stories, or something...

          But, i'll assume that when you die, many people will spout off... "I am glad that anonymous fucking coward is dead"
    • Re:Yeah, Heston! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tverbeek (457094) on Sunday April 06 2008, @07:24PM (#22983794) Homepage
      Regardless of whether you consider "The Ten Commandments" a sci-fi/fantasy film or not, it certainly had an impact on special effects for the genre.
        • Re:Yeah, Heston! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Sunday April 06 2008, @10:54PM (#22985174) Journal
          You do realize the Ten Commandments was in the Old Testament, right? Which is pretty much the Torah?

          Maybe if you said something about judeochristianity, you'd have a point... No, wait, then it couldn't be "fundamentalist" anymore.

          And yes, you are a troll, which is probably why you were modded as such.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 06 2008, @06:41PM (#22983494)
    He also fought for our rights to carry phasers and other types of disintegrator rays.
    • Now, now, you are getting into interpreting the constitution there. Guns was all they had back then, so that is all you can have now.
        • by Grant_Watson (312705) on Monday April 07 2008, @05:40AM (#22986816)

          Personally, I wouldnt mind it if muskets and Revolutionary War era arms are allowed, but nothing more recent.

          You know, I won't dispute your right to distribute pamphlets printed on a hand-crank press using lead type, but nothing more recent.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 06 2008, @10:02PM (#22984844)
      Dibs on prying the gun from his cold, dead hands.
  • RIP (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ArcadeX (866171) on Sunday April 06 2008, @06:43PM (#22983512)
    I can't think of a single person in hollywood today who's voice alone has his presence. Even hearing him read cop killer was something.
  • He was legend (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Sunday April 06 2008, @06:43PM (#22983522) Homepage
    Out of all the adaptations of Matheson's novel I am Legend [amazon.com] , Heston's The Omega Man was probably the most entertaining. It certainly stands tall above the dreck Will Smith starred in last year.
    • Re:He was legend (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Sunday April 06 2008, @07:01PM (#22983652) Homepage
      Out of all the adaptations of Matheson's novel I am Legend , Heston's The Omega Man was probably the most entertaining. It certainly stands tall above the dreck Will Smith starred in last year.

      I think it depends on which aspects of each of those movies you're talking about. As far as the performance of the main character, I think Will Smith turned in a vastly superior performance than Heston (no slight on Heston - I doubt any of Will Smith's work (to date) will stand the test of time that Heston's has). There was no scarier moment in the Heston version that was anywhere near as scary as when Smith goes in the dark building to get his dog. Certainly the special effects of an abandoned New York were nowhere up to the Smith version. The bad guys in the Heston movie were far more effective, I thought, than in the Smith version, though. And both fall down rather badly on the ending, neither of which makes the title of the original story (I Am Legend) make any sense - even in the alternate ending for the Smith movie. I don't know why it's so hard for the filmmakers to understand the title, or why they need to change it, considering noone has yet to make a movie of that story WITH the original ending.
      • Re:He was legend (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Chris Mattern (191822) on Sunday April 06 2008, @09:10PM (#22984466)
        The original ending is the zombies win. No producer in Hollywood will ever shoot an ending like that.
        • by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Sunday April 06 2008, @09:27PM (#22984590) Homepage
          The original ending is the zombies win. No producer in Hollywood will ever shoot an ending like that.

          Sure ... unlike pretty much every zombie movie ever made.
        • Re:He was legend (Score:4, Insightful)

          by hansamurai (907719) <hansamurai@gmail.com> on Monday April 07 2008, @07:44AM (#22987404) Homepage Journal
          Well, they technically win, but there are really two types of zombies/vampires. The intelligent type that wants to be civilized and the crazy, non-thinking type that just want blood and flesh. They're fighting each other, and it appears that the first group is winning. But since Robert Neville was killing them indiscriminately during the day, the intelligent group feared Neville more than the dumb vampires. So they went for him at the end and captured him. A sympathizer gives him the death pill so he can die in peace without being subjected to everything this group of vampires would do to him. His final thought is that he's a legend among this new human race, and forever will be.

          Much better ending than the movie. And I still think it's appropriate for film. The viewer probably will start to sympathize with the intelligent vampires near the end, because of the compassionate woman and because they are an acceptable replacement for the human race.
  • Oblig. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Sunday April 06 2008, @06:45PM (#22983540) Homepage
    *Pries the musket from his cold, dead hands [about.com]*
    • Damn you! I was just looking for somewhere to post this [shortpacked.com] and be witty.
    • It was the height of irony when Charlton Heston appeared as an ape in the "Planet of the Apes" remake...and gave an anti-gun speech.
      • by ScentCone (795499) on Sunday April 06 2008, @09:57PM (#22984794)
        It was the height of irony when Charlton Heston appeared as an ape in the "Planet of the Apes" remake...and gave an anti-gun speech.

        No, it wasn't. He wasn't giving an anti-gun speech at all, in that role. He was showing (as an ape) the fear and loathing of the intellect that could make the guns...

        Heston spent many years pointing out that people who fear the gun are too chickenshit to admit that it's really other people they fear. His ape character was a really good, (classically Heston!) over the top indictment of the irrational habit of blaming the tool and/or the symbol, rather than the person who uses them in a way you dislike. It was brilliant, and the only irony to be found is in the mis-comprehension of what he chose do with it by so many people who saw it.
          • by Capt James McCarthy (860294) on Monday April 07 2008, @05:51AM (#22986850) Journal
            "So if you (as a pro-gun person) don't fear other people, then why do you need a gun..."

            I'm "pro-choice." If I want to own one, it should be my choice. (and my responsibility) Thus, freedom to chose. Are you saying you want to limit my freedom of choice?

            And FWIW, when I go skeet shooting, you kind of need a gun for that. Somehow throwing flowers at the skeet just doesn't work as well. The weapon I chose, should be whichever I chose. Though I'll probably get modded flamebait on this post.
              • by BarefootClown (267581) on Monday April 07 2008, @10:55AM (#22989604) Homepage

                ...if I have good reason to believe that it's very likely you're going to kill someone on the road, I'd be looking into measures to have your driving license revoked.
                You'd...what? You think he's going to commit murder, so you're going to take away a piece of paper? Yeah, that'll stop him.

                Seriously--this is the failure of thought that leads to a lot of these silly laws. People--smart people, even--think that, if you take away permission, then somebody won't be able to do something bad.

                You miss the point that if he's going to do something bad, he probably doesn't care about "permission."

                This is why many of us thing the "gun control" laws are silly: they assume that the person bent on committing a violent crime gives a tinker's damn about "permission" to own a gun.

                Guess what: he doesn't.

                And, beyond that, are you saying that the way to handle somebody you believe is going to commit murder is to waggle your finger at him and say "no, please don't do that?" Seriously--take away a piece of paper? Are you kidding me?

                Do something about it! If you have good reason, don't look into taking away his permission slip, look into taking away his freedom. He can't run people down if he's cooling his heels in a jail cell, and if you have (solid) reason to believe he's going to commit murder, he can be legally detained.

                These are the twin failures of the "gun control" movement: belief that criminals care about the rules (hint: criminals, by definition, break rules), and belief that behaviour is controlled by objects, instead of people. Address the person--the criminal--not the tool.
    • Re:Oblig. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by STrinity (723872) on Sunday April 06 2008, @09:45PM (#22984702) Homepage
      You know, the man starred in over 100 movies, won an Academy Award, was the longest serving president of the Screen Actors Guild, and marched with Martin Luther King on Washington. But all people can do is make jokes about him being in the NRA.
      • Re:Oblig. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Pseudonym (62607) <ajb@spamc o p . n et> on Sunday April 06 2008, @08:57PM (#22984344)

        When Alec Guinness died, we said that he's become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

        When Douglas Adams died, we said that he's no doubt spending a year dead for tax reasons.

        When Arthur C. Clarke died, we said that he's probably been reincarnated as a large orbiting fetus.

        When Gary Gygax died, we said that he's lost his last saving throw.

        No, it's never too early, especially if the deceased would have appreciated the joke. When Terry Gilliam dies, you bet we're going to say: "Well you're dead now, so shut up." When Neal Stephenson dies, you bet we're going to comment about how the ending was a bit abrupt.

          • Re:Oblig (Score:5, Funny)

            by mfnickster (182520) on Sunday April 06 2008, @10:48PM (#22985138) Homepage
            > What will they say about Slashdot? All I can think of is that the first page of the guest book at the way will be full of "FRIST PO$T!!1!"

            They'll probably say "NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT."
  • Read the journal entry, and the first comment. I don't want to take any credit away from plover [slashdot.org] ... http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson/journal/200218 [slashdot.org]

    ...and the originator of "you can have ... when you pry it from my cold, dead hands".
    I call shotgun!

    Because apparently we CAN pry it from his cold, dead hands.

      • by Hawthorne01 (575586) on Sunday April 06 2008, @07:14PM (#22983732)
        He also was associated with the civil rights movement long before it became the fashionable thing to do in Hollywood.

        Heston saw no difference between campaign for personal freedom and the means to defend those freedoms.

        I can just imagine him going up to Moses and saying "Well, what did you think? Did I do you justice?" :)
      • by SargentDU (1161355) on Sunday April 06 2008, @07:18PM (#22983760)
        But letting citizens defend themselves against people who have the guns anyway (Law or no law) just makes sense. He was right with the gun control issue as he was when he marched with MLK in the day.
          • by servognome (738846) on Monday April 07 2008, @07:02AM (#22987158)

            Citizens don't need the 'DOOM' equal of the 'BFG' to protect themselves. Those things are only of use to the military and SHOULD be banned from citizen hands.
            Right, so that the people can't defend themselves from the military should it fall under less citizen friendly command.
      • by Zak3056 (69287) on Sunday April 06 2008, @08:57PM (#22984342) Homepage Journal

        However, when I heard he was involved with the gun association, it disappointed me and lowered him in my eyes. He may have been a great actor but I just don't share his thinking on such matters like gun control.

        When you look at his life in its entirety, it makes perfect sense. What it comes down to is that Charlton Heston became involved with the NRA for the same reason that he marched with Dr. Martin Luther King--to him, it was a civil rights issue.

        You can debate the right and wrong of the American right to keep and bear arms until the cows come home, but like it or not, the men who founded our nation had certain beliefs about what constituted the natural rights of men. They wrote some of these rights into our Constitution: free speech, a free press, freedom of religion, the right to be secure from intrusive government searches, the right to a trial by a jury of your peers, the right to bear arms, and more. Heston was a man who believed in those rights, and was willing to lend his fame to various causes in support of them. That's really all there is to it.

        So, feel free to think less of him for it (I'm sure that while he disagreed with what you had to say, he would have defended to the death your right to say it) but while you're doing so, also think about the notion that if you start to pick and choose what rights you think people ought to have, and try to redefine those rights out of existence, then someone else later will have an easier time of stripping the citizenry of the rights that YOU yourself hold dear. One need look no further than the current occupant of the white house to see such a process in action.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Here in Australia the previous government banned the sale of guns back in 1997 (I think) after a particularly atrocious massacre in Port Arthur, Tasmania.

          Armed robbery, along with most other forms of violent crime, is down across the nation. That's not likely due to the ban in guns though, as criminals are going to step outside the ban anyway.

          What has decreased are the number of fatal accidents in homes, and we've since had very few instances of some bozo kid picking up a gun and shooting people at school.

          B
          • by vux984 (928602) on Sunday April 06 2008, @09:59PM (#22984810)
            When asked what she would do if someone broke into her home to rape and murder her and her children, her response was simply, and genuinely: "I've decided that that won't happen to me."

            I guess you think that sounds pretty nutters doesn't it?

            What if her response had been, "What are the odds I'll be able to retreive my gun, unlock it, load it, and successfully fend off a murderer/rapist?"

            What percentage of people who have a gun are actually able to use it in these circumstances they imagine it will be so useful in? Any real statistics out there?

            What if her response had been, "What if I had a gun, and it was stolen while I was out, and used to shoot a small child?" or "What if I had a gun, and one of those children you were so concerned about accidently shot the other one with it?"

            Again, what percentage of people who have a gun are involved in accidental / misuse / etc?

            In other words, what percentage of guns end up actually used to prevent a crime vs end up being used to commit one and/or are involved in accidental shootings?

            What if the number involved in crimes / accidental shootings significantly exceeds the number that actually actively prevented crimes... ??

            In any case, I recently had a conversation with a pro-gun man. It was very civil, so no over the top rhetoric. When asked what he would do if his teenage child ever got pissed off at him, and in a fit of incredibly poor judgement takes the gun and shoots you with it. Then realizing what he's done, turns it on himself.

            His response was simply "I've that decide that won't happen to me." When followed up with a "What?" He explained that people decide to have those things happen to them, [when they choose ineffective parenting approaches, and fail to teach their children proper respect of guns], and that he had chosen not to have that happen to anyone in his family.

            Pro-gun types actually beleive that guns have magical powers to imbue people with good judgment, so if guns are given to THEM, they will somehow magically be immune from ever 'misusing' it or using it 'accidentally'.

            One thing that always strikes me as bizarre, stupid, whatever, is people like my neighbor with 3 huge guns. Specially states that he feels safer having them because he lives alone, but thinks that home security systems and dogs are ineffectual. Yet, a big gun in the closet... that will stop criminals from attacking him...

            Don't get me wrong, i'm not anti-gun, myself. But lousy reasoning exists on both sides of the argument. And bottom line, the only questions I'm interested in:

            Does having a gun actually make me safer? Or is it more likely to get me or someone I care about killed?
            Am I more likely to prevent a crime with it, or is it more likely that it will enable / escalate one?

            I don't know the answer to those questions.

            I do know I hear daily about some gun being misused, or accidently fired, or used in a fit of passion... I don't often hear about people who were able to fend off murderer/rapists with their gun. Call it media bias if you want... but until I see a REAL credible study done... well... I have serious doubts that guns will make me safer. I firmly beleive, for my own family, that the odds of the kids having an accident with it, FAR exceed the odds we'll get our home invaded by a murderous/rapist. But that's just me.

            • by Zerth (26112) on Sunday April 06 2008, @10:52PM (#22985164) Homepage
              See, it's stuff like that which keeps me from owning a gun. Takes to long to get ready and if you have one ready, somebody's kid might shoot themselves.

              That's why I keep a sword zip-tied to the bedstand behind my pillow.
          • by jollyreaper (513215) on Sunday April 06 2008, @10:42PM (#22985076)

            What people fail to realise is that Aussies were never really gun nuts to start with, owning a handgun has always been uncommon, carrying one has always been socially unacceptable.
            Well no kidding, have you seen what passes for knives over there?
  • by rubies (962985) on Sunday April 06 2008, @06:53PM (#22983586)
    Heston seemed like he was an eternal presence. From watching the 10 commandments on TV as a kid, then seeming The Omega Man late one night when I was about 12 (back when broadcast TV used to show movies late at night). That eye rolling dialog delivery, jutting jaw, big flashing teeth and the fact they he couldn't keep his shirt on for more than the first 10 minutes of any film made him an icon.

    Then again, you see him in the Orson Welles film "Touch of Evil" to see he could underplay it when he wanted to, he just chose not to. In honour of Chuck, I think The Omega Man is due a screening in my house this evening.
  • Let's not forget his acting in "Wayne's World 2" as "Good actor."...
  • Actors and activists (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 93 Escort Wagon (326346) on Sunday April 06 2008, @08:06PM (#22984042)
    I've enjoyed watching most every film Heston's been in (might want to exclude "Earthquake" from that list, though). He brought a commanding presence to his roles that is quite rare.

    I tend to ignore an actor's political statements, however (whether or not I agree with their sentiments). If I refused to watch any movie that included an actor that I'd seen make a fool out of him/herself, there'd be no point in my owning a DVD player - the pickings would be slim indeed.

  • MOSES? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Ralph Spoilsport (673134) on Sunday April 06 2008, @08:57PM (#22984346) Journal
    WHO is this MOSES???

    RS

    • Re:Finally... (Score:5, Informative)

      by ArcherB (796902) on Sunday April 06 2008, @07:25PM (#22983800) Journal

      Normally I wouldn't comment on such a sad occasion but for Charlton Heston I make an exception. Cold, Dead Hands ??? - Finally. One less extremist in the world. No RIP, I hope he turns in his grave.
      You call someone who marched with Martin Luther King and stands up for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights an extremist?

      I'm not going to say what I hope happens to your grave!
        • Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Hartree (191324) on Sunday April 06 2008, @08:10PM (#22984066)
          Oh, I wouldn't mod you down. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, no matter how silly.

          I think you'll find a lot of actors with kinda bizarro political views on all sides of the spectrum. And a good number of them are quite politically active.

          I'm old enough to remember some people saying such sentiments about John Wayne when he died. I'm sure some people on the other side of the political spectrum will say similar things about Jane Fonda, or Streisand when they die.

          In short: They're pooterheads.

          These are actors. Yes, they've been politically active. Lots of people are. But unlike Reagan or Schwarzenegger they've not run for political office.

          Yes, you may disagree with them. But, Isn't singing and strumming happy tunes to their death a bit much?

          To blatantly steal a quote from Sergeant Hulka in Stripes "Lighten up, Francis."
        • Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Sunday April 06 2008, @08:20PM (#22984122) Homepage Journal
          NRA extremists

          How do you define an 'NRA Extremist'? Is it anybody who believes the citizenry should be able to defend itself from a tyrannical government? Is it the kind of person who is 840 times less likely [mcgonigle.us] to commit gun crime than the general population?
          • Re:Finally... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by ScrewMaster (602015) on Sunday April 06 2008, @08:29PM (#22984156)
            The appellation "extremist" has little meaning nowadays. It is used primarily to smear those who hold unpopular beliefs ("Oh, you don't think like the rest of us? YOU MUST BE AN EXTREMIST!") rather than being reserved for those who truly do advocate extreme positions.
            • and you think owning a gun is going to allow you to defend yourself against the US military ?

              It sucks for we USA but that seems to be working just fine for the insurgents in Iraq. 20 billion dollars a month in occupation is being spent trying to suppress an insurgency that is armed with little more than homemade explosives and automatic weapons. If that does not give you an idea as to the efficacy of the right to keep and bear arms in keeping out a government that you do not like, then nothing will.
                  • Re:Finally... (Score:4, Insightful)

                    by bill_mcgonigle (4333) * on Sunday April 06 2008, @11:11PM (#22985278) Homepage Journal
                    Eh, I think you give them both too much credit. The last Republican congress spent like drunken sailors (and we didn't call them on it) and the Democrats are keen to put the government in charge of everything (like they do a great job at anything...) and take away people's freedom to make their own choices (hardy a high moral ground). They're both power-mad and enabled to be so by their parties (which Washington warned against). I have no idea how to get rid of them, though. On the Senate you're right - they're supposed to represent the States, but that got scuttled so now we have weakling states (since they have no say nor recourse) and large-scale homogeneity among them.
    • Re:Finally... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Martin Blank (154261) on Sunday April 06 2008, @07:26PM (#22983806) Journal
      Extremist? Not really. Sure, he was against gun control in most forms, but he was also pro-union and pro-civil rights. He was not the right-wing nut that some people claim him to be.

      One of my favorite stories from him was when, during the Rodney King riots, one or more fellow actors (he would not name them) called and asked if they could borrow one of his guns. He said, no, you can't, but you're welcome to come over to my place until things settle down.
        • by HornWumpus (783565) on Sunday April 06 2008, @08:47PM (#22984282)

          Define fascism any why you like...you will anyhow.

          But history tells a different story. It was in both Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy a combination of state and corporation. Corporations did what the state told them to or were taken over outright. Fascist were more then socialists in name. State takes over corporations in fascism as in all forms of centrally planned economies (in mixed economies like Europe and the USA some industries are run as government planned and often owned monopolies). When corporations take over the state it's called 'Corporatism'.

          For examples of corporations running states outright a jaded eye could look at the recent history of sub Saharan Africa or the history of the English empire. Not pretty either but nothing like the body count leftism in general has built.

          'Progressivism' as it's currently defined is simply the latest name for old school socialist thinking. Socialism does have an inherent concentration of power issue. Government run industries are almost always monopolies.

          In any case as long as we keep ourselves well armed we as Americans will be too expensive to govern with too heavy a hand. That was the ultimate purpose of the second. It had nothing to do with hunting, everything to do with enabling at least the threat of the next armed revolution.

          Go to the range folks. The gun is useless if you can't practice gun control.

          Charlton Heston would have wanted you to go to the range soon. I'd say to take your kids with you, but this is /. Damn am I on topic? WTF am I doing?

          Take a safety course if you're getting your first weapon. Start with a 22LR pistol or rifle.

    • Re:Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)

      by slamb (119285) * on Sunday April 06 2008, @09:30PM (#22984614) Homepage

      Damn, I'm totally independant, but I wish I was republican for a moment, if for nothing else but to throw out that zinger.


      No need to be Republican - it's important to admit when people on your side are being dishonest. (And "Bowling for Columbine" misrepresented Charlton Heston's actions and basically everything else it portrayed.) One could argue that the party of Lincoln fell so far because Republicans wouldn't call out Republicans for ethical lapses, and it'd be sad if the Democrats followed them any further down that road.
          • Re:Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)

            by slamb (119285) * on Monday April 07 2008, @02:23AM (#22986170) Homepage

            For once, I'd like one of Moore's critics to address the points he makes rather than the techniques he uses to make them.

            That's a bit hard to do because his most insidious, dishonest points are ones he denies making at all. His subtle edits and omissions of facts lead the viewer to an erroneous conclusion that was never explicitly stated.

            It's been a long time since I looked into this, but iirc Moore manipulated Charlton Heston into saying something which could be seen as racist (neglecting to mention that the man actually marched with MLK Jr!), implied that Heston led a rally in Colorado in response to Columbine (it was planned well in advance), and that Heston used language which, given the situation, was quite inflammatory (those snippets were actually spliced together from several different rallies). He made many other, less topical, manipulations of fact.

            I suspect it has something to do with his politics, since the ones who complain the loudest tend to be die-hard Republicans.

            I am a Democrat, and I am disappointed that so few Democrats complain about Moore.