Four Seasons Landscaping said:

---

Regarding the 'gay rocks people'....has it ever been confirmed Korg is even a male?

In all honesty, rock people being asexual makes an awful lot of sense.

---

Lol. I intentionally left those scenes out when I posted what I thought of the movie but here we go.

If you were to put this movie in a box…..meaning all the agenda stuff…..the Disney woke meeting on twitter….yadda yadda yadda…..these scenes in T:L&T are actually pretty dang funny.

Having Korg make the comment he did about a boyfriend….and this is some sort of lava rock alien monster….you could easily look at that and go, "Holy crap! Korg's been a chick this whole time??? That's hilarious!" And as far as Valkyrie goes….I mean….it's kinda obvious. Hell I'd put this in the same light almost as the Beauty and the Beast remake. Why?

That movie was supposed to be an updated version of a cartoon. Well……updated Lefue to be gay almost had to happen because….I mean look at the guy…..good grief he leads a song about how much he fawns over Gaston and you know what…..I'd do that too if I were a gay cartoon character.



Problem is though….you can't put this movie in a box and look at it like that anymore because they won't let us. Not when the company as a whole (and as others have stated correctly multiple times) has come out and said, "We want to have all people in the LGBTQ community to be represented in every film/media we make." And that's where they're going to lose a lot of people.

And after watching the Lightyear movie and now this, it was as if I could see a running clock as that scene continued on and once it was over it was like, "Alright! Yep! Hit the appropriate run time for anyone who's LGBTQ to be represented. Hope you liked our side-step of the story and we now bring you back to your regularly scheduled program."

Anyway that's my take. Strong Christian and because of how we raise our kids I'm not worried about scenes like that. Bottom line…..it's distracting when it has nothing to do with the movie and you've made it known that you care more about the agenda than telling a good story

Every time I open this thread:

I'm not a fan of wishing wells from a story point of view. At least with the Infinity Gauntlet we knew that Thanos wanted to do exactly one thing and one thing only with it, gathering the stones was done very organically across multiple movies, and then it was destroyed.

In this movie, you have Eternity which seems to be even more powerful than the gauntlet, or at least it can bring a person back to life which the gauntlet could not. So now we have a device that can do literally anything, and one of our main characters can basically go there whenever he wants? Heimdall's kid could go back there too? How does it work? Does Eternity only grant one wish ever? If not, why didn't Thor just wait his turn in line and make a wish after Gorr was done? Why not wish for unlimited wishes, etc? It just breaks down as soon as you spend more than 5 seconds thinking about it.

Pretty sure they said Eternity would grant the wish of the *first* person who reached it. So Gorr reached Eternity first, Thor convinced Gorr to use his wish for good, you kind of see Eternity turn into the daughter, and there are no more wishes to be granted by Eternity.

They might have just not known about it. The Necrosword probably guided Gorr to that knowledge.

I didn't think I'd get the chance to read a debate about the sexuality of a rock being, yet here we are. This is why I will never let you go, Texags. Never.

Which direction do you think the Rock Biter swung? I have my guess.

If people would just let the socons make their post about it and not engage we wouldn't have these weird tangents. It's pretty easy.

Make Thor gay you cowards!

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

TexAgs never fails when I need an eye-rolling belly laugh.

But I do take a bit of an exception to this, that I've seen posted twice now:

Quote:

---

gay-bashing religious zealots

---

Perhaps it's just me, but in my circle of Christian acquaintances and friends, I've seen no gay bashing of any kind. Exactly who are you referring to here? Religious could be anyone, even those who deny the existence of God, ie, government is their religion. Are you talking about those who shall not be named who throw gays from buildings?

I am not gay. I do not care for that lifestyle. I do find it to be forced into just about everything these days. It's in literally every thing that Disney produces. It's also in sports. Sitcoms have been doing this for a while now. Yes, I could turn off the media for that, but for the snippet here or there all I'd really be doing is denying myself the entertainment that I have always enjoyed. I don't complain much about it on here, if any, but I will defend my views and my religious beliefs. I don't see movies that are largely about this lifestyle, but up until recently, I also didn't expect to find it put into properties like Star Wars or Marvel (and spare me the "but it's been in the comics! I'm not a comics reader).

I will continue to post on both Politics and Entertainment. Why? Because it's a free country, and it is possible to have opinions on both topics.

---

In no way, shape, or form did I say or imply that all religious people or all Christians are gay-bashers, nor was I referring to you or your circle of Christian friends with that comment (obviously). I was very clearly talking about a specific type of religious zealot/Christian. And if you haven't seen them on F16, I don't know what to tell you. Because in literally every thread having to do with anything gay or trans, they show up, and the seething hatred with which they refer to the gay community/gay "agenda"/"groomers" is truly batsh*t. It's some of the most vile, disturbing hate I've ever seen, delivered with the confidence of zealots who believe their god shares their hate, and thus their hate is not only justified, but righteous.

I grew up extremely involved in the church (every Sunday morning, youth group every Sunday afternoon, church dinners every Wednesday, Young Life, the whole nine), I have tons of close Christians friends, my entire family is Christian, I love them all very much, and not a one of them hate gay people. In fact, my sisters have a number of close gay friends. In other words, I don't at all think that all Christians are "gay-basher." Which is *exactly* why the F16 breed stands out to me so much.

In the end, though, I'm sorry, but if your god/religion thinks that being gay is a "sin," I want nothing to do with your god/religion. And this is coming from a straight man, i.e. it's not a personal vendetta. But having been around and friends with countless gay people my entire life, especially here in LA, I'm utterly convinced that most (though not all, of course) gay people are born that way. If only because no one would actively choose that path, and to write them all off as simply being "mentally ill," as most of F16 does, is easy and abhorrent. So, any god that allows people to be born gay, but forbids them from not only marrying someone of the same sex, but having a loving, physical relationship with anyone of the same the sex, all the while telling the people who were lucky enough to be born heterosexual, "Sure, go right ahead! Your physical expression of love (after marriage) isn't a sin!" is about one of most f/cked up things I can imagine.

That's why when Christians use religious reasons to say they don't "agree" with the gay lifestyle - from the gay-bashing zealots all the way down to the "tolerant" folk who still think it's a sin - it *all* makes me want to scream just the same. Because it's such a cowardly, believe-as-you're-told copout, based on a book written 2000 years ago that you believe is right simply because *it* says it's right. And for the worst of the F16ers, it's a call to put virtual signaling to their god above treating a maligned community with love, empathy, and respect. An aspect of which has, as of late, evolved into endlessly complaining about the gay "agenda," gay "propaganda," groomers, and maligning the gay community even more. When, in reality, as a poster said earlier, *depiction* is not "forcing" anything. Sure, is some of it in bad faith and nothing more than an attempt to check a box?. No doubt. But, by and large, what it truly is is an attempt to offer representation, hope, an olive branch, etc to a group in the face of the increasingly loud and increasingly vile F16ers of the world. The irony, of course, is that the louder the F16ers of the world scream, the more the Disneys of the world want to represent, and round and round we go.

Wellp, we've jumped the shark officially.

TCTTS said:

---

In no way, shape, or form did I say or imply that all religious people or all Christians are gay-bashers, nor was I referring to you or your circle of Christian friends with that comment (obviously). I was very clearly talking about a specific type of religious zealot/Christian. And if you haven't seen them on F16, I don't know what to tell you. Because in literally every thread having to do with anything gay or trans, they show up, and the seething hatred with which they refer to the gay community/gay "agenda"/"groomers" is truly batsh*t. It's some of the most vile, disturbing hate I've ever seen, delivered with the confidence of zealots who believe their god shares their hate, and thus their hate is not only justified, but righteous.

I grew up extremely involved in the church (every Sunday morning, youth group every Sunday afternoon, church dinners every Wednesday, Young Life, the whole nine), I have tons of close Christians friends, my entire family is Christian, I love them all very much, and not a one of them hate gay people. In fact, my sisters have a number of close gay friends. In other words, I don't at all think that all Christians are "gay-basher." Which is *exactly* why the F16 breed stands out to me so much.

In the end, though, I'm sorry, but if your god/religion thinks that being gay is a "sin," I want nothing to do with your god/religion. And this is coming from a straight man, i.e. it's not a personal vendetta. But having been around and friends with countless gay people my entire life, especially here in LA, I'm utterly convinced that most (though not all, of course) gay people are born that way. If only because no one would actively choose that path, and to write them all off as simply being "mentally ill," as most of F16 does, is easy and abhorrent. So, any god that allows people to be born gay, but forbids them from not only marrying someone of the same sex, but having a loving, physical relationship with anyone of the same the sex, all the while telling the people who were lucky enough to be born heterosexual, "Sure, go right ahead! Your physical expression of love (after marriage) isn't a sin!" is about one of most f/cked up things I can imagine.

That's why when Christians use religious reasons to say they don't "agree" with the gay lifestyle - from the gay-bashing zealots all the way down to the "tolerant" folk who still think it's a sin - it *all* makes me want to scream just the same. Because it's such a cowardly, believe-as-you're-told copout, based on book written 2000 years ago that you believe is right simply because *it* says it's right. And for the worst of the F16ers, it's a call to put virtual signaling to their god above treating a maligned community with love, empathy, and respect. An aspect of which has, as of late, evolved into endlessly complaining about the gay "agenda," gay "propaganda," groomers, and maligning the gay community even more. When, in reality, as a poster said earlier, *depiction* is not "forcing" anything. Sure, is some of it in bad faith and nothing more than an attempt to check a box?. No doubt. But, by and large, what it truly is is an attempt to offer representation, hope, an olive branch, etc to a group in the face of the increasingly loud and increasingly vile F16ers of the world. The irony, of course, is that the louder the F16ers of the world scream, the more the Disneys of the world want to represent, and round and round we go.

---

If this thread is any indication, the average F16 poster is way more reasonable than you.

the Thor: Love and Thunder thread is now the message board equivalent of two space goats screaming at everybody for hours.

well played Texags

I don't get the outpouring of admiration for Bale's performance. He was good, but he was barely on screen and spent more time fighting than acting. He had the same Marvel villian problem as most the others: 5 minutes of backstory and 20 minutes of screentime. I'd have watched an entire disney+ prequel movie about him leading his band of worshippers, getting wiped out, and ending with his daughter dying the in the desert. At least then I would have given two shakes about his character. They could have even thrown in some stuff about the NecroSword so it wasn't just explained away as they went along.

So far the only villians we've had in the movies are Thanos, Loki and Wanda that weren't one-note, one-offs.

jackie childs said:

---

the Thor: Love and Thunder thread is now the message board equivalent of two space goats screaming at everybody for hours.

well played Texags

---

I loved those goats so much.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I don't get the outpouring of admiration for Bale's performance. He was good, but he was barely on screen and spent more time fighting than acting. He had the same Marvel villian problem as most the others: 5 minutes of backstory and 20 minutes of screentime. I'd have watched an entire disney+ prequel movie about him leading his band of worshippers, getting wiped out, and ending with his daughter dying the in the desert. At least then I would have given two shakes about his character. They could have even thrown in some stuff about the NecroSword so it wasn't just explained away as they went along.

So far the only villians we've had in the movies are Thanos, Loki and Wanda that weren't one-note, one-offs.

---

It really is weird how, in a universe of 30+ connected movies, along with hours and hours of further connected shows, so many of the villains are so short-changed and basically one-off obstacles more than they are actual characters. When this is the *perfect* format to be developing and evolving multiple villains across multiple movies/shows.

TCTTS said:

---

Of course, you won't elaborate at all on how I'm being "unreasonable," when I'm the one who went to the trouble to explain exactly why I feel the way I do.

---

If this sounds reasonable to you, then I don't know what to say:

"... your extreme-right echo chamber, one that acts as a haven for QAnon believers, Trump worshipers, gay-bashing religious zealots, vile-spitting, second-Civil-War-cheering gun nuts who legit believe in a highly-coordinated, thousand-person conspiracy to steal the election and that the left is worse than ISIS, is one of the highest-trafficked boards on the site is a bit like bragging that your mental hospital has more patients than most of the other hospitals in town. Crazy attracts crazy, and there's a reason so many people call that place 16chan."

There's no doubt that some F16ers go overboard. But you give them a run for their money.

Other than that, I enjoy your posts about the inside workings of the industry.

Not trying to argue, but I don't really see the need to state the age of the Bible being part of the reason you think the truths are irrelevant when the basis of engineering and philosophy (etc) was discovered even before the Bible was written.

The age of something doesn't make it irrelevant.

TCTTS said:

---

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

TexAgs never fails when I need an eye-rolling belly laugh.

But I do take a bit of an exception to this, that I've seen posted twice now:

Quote:

---

gay-bashing religious zealots

---

Perhaps it's just me, but in my circle of Christian acquaintances and friends, I've seen no gay bashing of any kind. Exactly who are you referring to here? Religious could be anyone, even those who deny the existence of God, ie, government is their religion. Are you talking about those who shall not be named who throw gays from buildings?

I am not gay. I do not care for that lifestyle. I do find it to be forced into just about everything these days. It's in literally every thing that Disney produces. It's also in sports. Sitcoms have been doing this for a while now. Yes, I could turn off the media for that, but for the snippet here or there all I'd really be doing is denying myself the entertainment that I have always enjoyed. I don't complain much about it on here, if any, but I will defend my views and my religious beliefs. I don't see movies that are largely about this lifestyle, but up until recently, I also didn't expect to find it put into properties like Star Wars or Marvel (and spare me the "but it's been in the comics! I'm not a comics reader).

I will continue to post on both Politics and Entertainment. Why? Because it's a free country, and it is possible to have opinions on both topics.

---

In no way, shape, or form did I say or imply that all religious people or all Christians are gay-bashers, nor was I referring to you or your circle of Christian friends with that comment (obviously). I was very clearly talking about a specific type of religious zealot/Christian. And if you haven't seen them on F16, I don't know what to tell you. Because in literally every thread having to do with anything gay or trans, they show up, and the seething hatred with which they refer to the gay community/gay "agenda"/"groomers" is truly batsh*t. It's some of the most vile, disturbing hate I've ever seen, delivered with the confidence of zealots who believe their god shares their hate, and thus their hate is not only justified, but righteous.

I grew up extremely involved in the church (every Sunday morning, youth group every Sunday afternoon, church dinners every Wednesday, Young Life, the whole nine), I have tons of close Christians friends, my entire family is Christian, I love them all very much, and not a one of them hate gay people. In fact, my sisters have a number of close gay friends. In other words, I don't at all think that all Christians are "gay-basher." Which is *exactly* why the F16 breed stands out to me so much.

In the end, though, I'm sorry, but if your god/religion thinks that being gay is a "sin," I want nothing to do with your god/religion. And this is coming from a straight man, i.e. it's not a personal vendetta. But having been around and friends with countless gay people my entire life, especially here in LA, I'm utterly convinced that most (though not all, of course) gay people are born that way. If only because no one would actively choose that path, and to write them all off as simply being "mentally ill," as most of F16 does, is easy and abhorrent. So, any god that allows people to be born gay, but forbids them from not only marrying someone of the same sex, but having a loving, physical relationship with anyone of the same the sex, all the while telling the people who were lucky enough to be born heterosexual, "Sure, go right ahead! Your physical expression of love (after marriage) isn't a sin!" is about one of most f/cked up things I can imagine.

That's why when Christians use religious reasons to say they don't "agree" with the gay lifestyle - from the gay-bashing zealots all the way down to the "tolerant" folk who still think it's a sin - it *all* makes me want to scream just the same. Because it's such a cowardly, believe-as-you're-told copout, based on book written 2000 years ago that you believe is right simply because *it* says it's right. And for the worst of the F16ers, it's a call to put virtual signaling to their god above treating a maligned community with love, empathy, and respect. An aspect of which has, as of late, evolved into endlessly complaining about the gay "agenda," gay "propaganda," groomers, and maligning the gay community even more. When, in reality, as a poster said earlier, *depiction* is not "forcing" anything. Sure, is some of it in bad faith and nothing more than an attempt to check a box?. No doubt. But, by and large, what it truly is is an attempt to offer representation, hope, an olive branch, etc to a group in the face of the increasingly loud and increasingly vile F16ers of the world. The irony, of course, is that the louder the F16ers of the world scream, the more the Disneys of the world want to represent, and round and round we go.

---

All right, thanks for your explanation.

I could explain my reasoning to you, but this thread is already on the verge of derailment. I don't hate gays. At the same time, I don't want it forced on me. And yeah, you put forced in quotes, but as a fan of these movies, am I supposed to deny myself that entertainment just to say it is not forced on me? Yes, I could deny my own wants to pick up my cross and follow Jesus, and in some respects, I do that. Why the hell did we as a society have to go from an attitude of "You do you, I'll do me" to "YOU WILL CELEBRATE WHAT I DO OR I WILL CALL YOU NAMES"?

Ha, literally every one of those groups I mentioned is absolutely represented on F16, and not in small numbers either. That's an undeniable fact. Again, those groups don't make up *all* of F16 - not by a long shot - but F16 *is* a haven for all of those extreme personality types. That's just... not even an argument. And any objective person will tell you as much. It always baffles me how unaware those who frequent F16 are of how F16 is perceived by the other boards, by Twitter, by reddit, by Ags in the real world, etc. When the vast majority of people who are aware of TexAgs think of F16 as a joke, if not a stain on this website and Aggies as a whole. It's not just me either, and it's not just the "libs." It's most rational-thinking people who don't define themselves by and see the world through the ridiculously skewed political prism that frequenters of F16 do.

I wish I could summon screaming goats right now