But don't you see? The idea of the Asgardians body hopping is hardly a new one as you mention that alternate universe within the comics have done so. And since the movie are their own separate continuity from 616, why should they have to adhere to those rules, when other universes get to mix it up? The defense of keeping Heimdall white is either borne of an inability to see non-white actors as anything but the cliche roles we've kept them too (which, in itself is a form of prejudice, whether we like to admit it or not), or the tired and true cry of "Not my canon!" And both are ignoring the reality that times are changing, and movies need to catch up, and the this movie isn't a direct adaptation of the comics. You may not like it for purism sake, but you can't honestly argue that it's wrong. And as such, the casting becomes a matter of taste - and as that's subjective, there's no clear winner until the movie comes out. And even then, opinions aren't required to change...Therumancer said:
The viewpoint you're arguing of left-wingers is just as strong in right-winger. No one likes to think their wrong. But it happens.
I'm not saying the 70/30 on gay rights is actually full-blown support and acceptance by the people. It's that a majority of people that are 'for' the rights are a mixed group of the actually cheer squad for gay rights, and people who just don't give a flying fuck. My mom sees no issue that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry; but she's still sure they're going to hell. I support that a terrorist has the same legal rights as any other criminal we arrest. Doesn't mean I support terrorists. I just realize that it would set a dangerous precedent to declare that people who are "really bad" don't have rights. It'd be a countdown until we started applying that logic on any group we didn't like (as we already are doing in some of these case, as we're discovering).
And yes, a lot of liberal ideas, in the past, were hugely unpopular. And guess what? The nay-sayers were, eventually ignored, and progress was made. Integrating schools and the military was not at all a popular idea. The public was pretty up front with how much they didn't want that. But that didn't make them right in their opinions. Why? Because they claimed to support the principles of freedom and equality that America stood for, and then turned around and kept entire pockets of their own people beneath them. The law called them on their hypocrisy and made these unpopular ideas law. But your argument is that we should just sit around and wait for everyone to full-out agree before we make any moves. Even if one side holds views that are wrong, because it's only "fair". In an issue like abortion, then yes, both sides deserve equal time because there is no black and white stance that will be full proof. But on the issue of gay rights? We'll have to agree to disagree. You can't proclaim yourself a citizen of a nation the celebrates freedom, when you're stepping on the rights of your own people because you think they're gross. No where did I say an unpopular opinion is automatically wrong, and should be ignored. But an irrefutably wrong opinion should be. If an opinion can be shown as wrong through facts? Then it doesn't need to be treated as a legitimate school of thought - and that goes for both sides. Liberals quited down pretty quick when the current Pope was sworn in, and the talk of him being a Nazi sympathizer was stirred up. They cried all over that the Church had screwed up something spectacular with this pick. But they got slapped with the truth of his childhood in the Hitler Youth program did not mean he was a Nazi - because that was a mandate for children in Nazi controlled areas. And the reasonable liberals shut up and sulked over it. You're not seeing that on issues with the right. Again, I'll use the subject of Obama's religion. An overwhelming majority still hold to the notion that he's a Muslim. They hold that view in the face of hard truths: the controversy over his Christian preacher saying racist remarks, and Obama's own word. But, the truth isn't good enough. And this isn't just the fringes of that side of the spectrum doing that. It's public figures, elected officials, and so on. If a journalist refuses to listen to one of their guests when s/he start in on that issue - they don't have to. They don't have to entertain a blatantly wrong thing. Fair Game would demand that the journalist do just that, however. It promotes false equivalence.
I think a lot of this annoyance/outrage coming from many (whom I'm assuming identify as conservate/right) is born of the big difference between the right and left and how they self identify within their social 'tribe'. Conservatives lock ranks and support one another no matter what - such solidarity is an admirable trait, but it does have the nasty drawback that the more extreme members are inadvertently given the position of being a representative of all. I've always asked of my more right-minded friends why they put up with goofs like Beck and Palin being their public voices, and the response is usually something like "We back our own."
And not to say the left is a bastion of awesomness. I've seen how damn hard it is to get liberals to rally together to be a focused force on many an issues. The right's flaw is an almost blind devotion, but the left suffers from being easily distracted like a group of squirrels. A real lack of drive is their biggest issue. My liberal friends will have a strong opinion on an issue, but they fizz out pretty fast. They don't expect to get the same level of fervor by their fellows, as a conservative battle cry does.
At the core of your complaint that you didn't want to have to deal with this on the site...but you were given fair warning that Big Picture was Escapist giving Bob an avenue to do whatever he wanted. And he did say that he was going to use it as a soapbox. He's been pretty up front with where his views on things with sly remarks and tangential remarks in his movie reviews. Which reminds me, you can't really argue that he's all for the PC crowd when his Black Swan review was him calling out the PC crowd on the whole "hot lesbian" scene.
I do understand where you're coming from, though. I just wonder if it warrants the anger (or disappointment) at Bob because of something he has no idea of. He got an extra segment, and he was given a blank slate, he just happened to pick an idea that isn't universally loved. You can always take the extra minute to check the forum responses after he posts to see if it'll be a subject that you care to listen to him go on about? And now that you've got an even better gauge of his views, you can make an even more informed decision as to whether you want to click play.
