jimmycurry01 said: "That's the difference between making a movie based on true events and making a documentary. If you want somebody's truth, you watch a documentary, not a movie. One is meant to entertain, the other to educate."
The arguments with Sorkin (mainly as they relate to BEING THE RICARDOS and TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7) is that the actual events and people were much more interesting and impactful than what he presented them to be on the screen. Some people feel his portrayal of Lucille Ball was a disservice to her in regards to HUAC and as a trailblazer, businesswoman, and comedienne (regardless of what Lucie Arnaz might say). Same with Bobby Seale, Abbie Hoffman, and some of the others portrayed in CHICAGO 7; those men became watered-down caricatures on screen.
Nobody's saying that the events have to be 100% accurate, and there often has to be some level of simplification or omission in the name of storytelling. But when your work is grounded in realism (as those two films were), one should be able to expect a certain level of integrity and respect for the real-life figures.
The other complaint is that sometimes he intellectualizes characters a little too much when a simpler vernacular would be more effective. I know some people have found his dialog for Calpurnia and some of the old racists in MOCKINGBIRD to be almost comical in its sophistication.
Luckily, none of the above will be relevant to CAMELOT, since it is a work of fiction, and all the characters in it are fairly high-status.
Will this be his first work that isn't about Americans?