The dismissive mocking of conservative critics

Quote:

---

certain conservatives - most of them here men - get irrationally upset over the race of make believe fantasy characters in movies.

---

fails to understand the problem or simply ignores it and responds with derisive quips to make conservatives look like sulking juveniles. End of discussion.

Is it that difficult to see this is not about silly cartoons or mythological beings? It's not even so much the casting.

It is right here.

Quote:

---

This is your DEI world.

---

Although that is only the tip of the iceberg. One small tip really. DEI. Okay, well what do we mean by that?

However, conservatives, for their part, have likewise not framed the problem, but that is because the platform prevents it. Keep F16 off the entertainment boards.

So, here we are. The bickering going on is like that of a man and woman who don't understand one another.

Which is why this is all so entertaining.

Quote:

---

So, here we are. The bickering going on is like that of a man and woman who don't understand one another.

Which is why this is all so entertaining.

---

This has become like when couples fight by each purposefully exaggerating what the other is saying.


"Oh OK, so you're saying you want me to NEVER GOLF WITH THE GUYS AGAIN and just sit here ALL DAY, knitting and WATCHING HGTV!" When all she really asked was that he give her some more attention.

And

"OH, I GET IT! So you want me to LOOK LIKE A 20-YEAR OLD sorority girl ALL THE TIME because I'm not ENOUGH FOR YOU ANYMORE!" when he hinted that she didn't work as hard to look her best on her date as she did for her girls' night out.

It's gaslighting through logical fallacies rather than accepting what the other is saying at face-value and assuming the best in them rather than the worst, and it's what makes some posters who they are.

Now you guys have to be doubly offended I'm afraid.

https://variety.com/2026/film/news/elon-musk-the-odyssey-lupita-nyongo-helen-of-troy-1236747385/

A new Time magazine profile of Nolan, published May 12, confirmed that not only is Nyong'o playing Helen of Troy, aka the most beautiful woman in Greek mythology, but the Oscar winner has a surprise second role as Helen's sister Clytemnestra, who is married to Agamemnon.

In 5 or 10 years they'll be arguing about inflation and converting past dollars to present value.

Anyways, I'm still on the fence about this movie and as I've been reading through this thread a thought occurred to me and maybe I missed it but why is there not a single black person in the trailer?

Teslag said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Urban Ag said:

---

The D said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

MAGA hasn’t been this offended by fictional characters since a Black mermaid ruined their historically accurate underwater kingdom.

— Alex Cole (@acnewsitics) May 15, 2026

---

Oh no the bad MAGA!

---

What's hilarious about this is just how out of touch it all is.

The people that lost their minds about the Little Mermaid were mostly white, suburban, moms, that loved the film as little girls and didn't want the memory trampled on. My wife (although not white) was one of them. I had a lot of fun trolling her about it because frankly I couldn't give a sh** one way or the other.

That's a tweet, posted originally and linked here, to do nothing more than throw a tantrum. You're a racist if you voted Trump. LMAO.

But carry on by all means.

---

Look up the old live-action Little Mermaid thread and you'll find tons of grown ass men throwing tantrums over the casting. It was somehow worse than even this thread.

Also, no one here said you're racist if you voted for Trump. It's simply humorous the consistency in which certain conservatives - most of them here men - get irrationally upset over the race of make believe fantasy characters in movies.

---

Were they "throwing tantrums" or just ridiculing Hollywood pandering and tokenism?

---

lol, this thread has it all. Bayside tiger ag has joined the chat

AGinHI said:

---

The dismissive mocking of conservative critics

Quote:

---

certain conservatives - most of them here men - get irrationally upset over the race of make believe fantasy characters in movies.

---

fails to understand the problem or simply ignores it and responds with derisive quips to make conservatives look like sulking juveniles. End of discussion.

Is it that difficult to see this is not about silly cartoons or mythological beings? It's not even so much the casting.

It is right here.

Quote:

---

This is your DEI world.

---

Although that is only the tip of the iceberg. One small tip really. DEI. Okay, well what do we mean by that?

However, conservatives, for their part, have likewise not framed the problem, but that is because the platform prevents it. Keep F16 off the entertainment boards.

So, here we are. The bickering going on is like that of a man and woman who don't understand one another.

Which is why this is all so entertaining.

---

Your DEI point is made utterly irrelevant by the fact that Nolan's Oppenheimer made nearly a billion dollars, won Best Picture, and was an all around pop culture phenomenon… with an all-white cast. In fact, it's easily the whitest blockbuster of past decade+. For which Nolan got endless **** from the left in the lead up to the movie, which he never acknowledged, entertained, or blinked in the face of. The man simply does not give a **** about the pearl-clutching on either side, and at this point is obviously going to make whatever movie he wants to make, perception, politics, and culture wars be damned.

Also, at this point, no one is keeping you from making whatever ill-formed DEI point you want to make. Staff has clearly decided to loosen the guardrails in this thread, so, by all means, please explain how and why, outside of Steven Spielberg, the most powerful director in Hollywood, at the absolute height of his power, is somehow suddenly a slave to / capitulating to DEI. I would absolutely love to hear your reasoning

TCTTS said:

---

AGinHI said:

---

The dismissive mocking of conservative critics

Quote:

---

certain conservatives - most of them here men - get irrationally upset over the race of make believe fantasy characters in movies.

---

fails to understand the problem or simply ignores it and responds with derisive quips to make conservatives look like sulking juveniles. End of discussion.

Is it that difficult to see this is not about silly cartoons or mythological beings? It's not even so much the casting.

It is right here.

Quote:

---

This is your DEI world.

---

Although that is only the tip of the iceberg. One small tip really. DEI. Okay, well what do we mean by that?

However, conservatives, for their part, have likewise not framed the problem, but that is because the platform prevents it. Keep F16 off the entertainment boards.

So, here we are. The bickering going on is like that of a man and woman who don't understand one another.

Which is why this is all so entertaining.

---

Your DEI point is made utterly irrelevant by the fact that Nolan's Oppenheimer made nearly a billion dollars, won Best Picture, and was an all around pop culture phenomenon… with an all-white cast. In fact, it's easily the whitest blockbuster of past decade+. For which Nolan got endless **** from the left in the lead up to the movie, which he never acknowledged, entertained, or blinked in the face of. The man simply does not give a **** about the pearl-clutching on either side, and at this point is obviously going to make whatever movie he wants to make, perception, politics, and culture wars be damned.

Also, at this point, no one is keeping you from making whatever ill-formed DEI point you want to make. Staff has clearly decided to loosen the guardrails in this thread, so, by all means, please explain how and why, outside of Steven Spielberg, the most powerful director in Hollywood, at the absolute height of his power, is somehow suddenly a slave to / capitulating to DEI. I would absolutely love to hear your reasoning

---

I'm sorry. I only read your first sentence. Well, not even that. I stopped after irrelevant.

I guess it is hard. It's not DEI ("one small tip"). But whatever.

Hopefully, y'all are enjoying Aggie baseball right now as well. Or maybe the anxiety of the rubber match is influencing the posting.

Bruce Almighty said:

---

I think every movie is different; and how it's presented matters. Having a black person playing a character in the Brad Pitt's Troy wouldn't have made sense. This doesn't seem to be that type of movie though. This movie feels more like a comic book movie than trying to portray any kind of historical accuracy. We have American actors using American accents with modern American-English. There's costuming that doesn't fit the time period at all. I think it's fine to be upset with how the movie is getting made, but it seems odd to watch the trailer, see how this movie is contained within its own universe and then complain about the race or genders of the actors. This movie is using a Greek story, but it doesn't feel like a Greek movie.

---

Sir, there is no place here for sane, rational, well-reasoned takes. Only stubborn, cliched, Fox-News-brain talking points and an obsession with clearly minor characters who will hardly be in the movie comparatively. Especially now that Page-as-Achilles is almost assuredly bunk (after being assured by many here that it wasn't), all focus now needs to go to fretting over the skin color of a make-believe character who hatched from an egg / came from the seed of her god/swan father, in a 2700-year-old fantasy epic, which a popular director is now clearly doing his own, unique, modern interpretation of.

Ah, yes, a typical TexAgs response. When faced with irrefutable evidence that your point holds no water, simply ignore said evidence, deflect, and walk away. Rinse and repeat.

Oppenheimer, and what Nolan was trying to say with it, is FAR more nuanced than that, but sure, keep spouting/believing this.

TCTTS said:

---

Oppenheimer, and what Nolan was trying to say with it, is FAR more nuanced than that, but sure, keep spouting/believing this.

---

This wasn't so subtle lol


Nor was the one time we see Truman turned into a total caricature. Again, it doesn't jolt you at all because it's spoon-feeding you the view of the world and history you likely already had. It doesn't hit everyone the same.

Then actually refute it. You always say this but then never address the meat of it.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Oppenheimer, and what Nolan was trying to say with it, is FAR more nuanced than that, but sure, keep spouting/believing this.

---

This wasn't so subtle lol


Nor was the one time we see Truman turned into a total caricature. Again, it doesn't jolt you at all because it's spoon-feeding you the view of the world and history you likely already had. It doesn't hit everyone the same.

---

You have no clue what my world view is when it comes to this subject. Good lord, quit speaking for me.

I am 100% in support of our use of nuclear force to end the war and save the hundreds of thousands of lives (if not many more) that prolonging the war would have otherwise caused. What we did was just and necessary. That doesn't mean that people still can't lament (and be depicted as lamenting) that it had to come to that at all, or the world it created going forward.

TCTTS said:

---

Ah, yes, a typical TexAgs response. When faced with irrefutable evidence that your point holds no water, simply ignore said evidence, deflect, and walk away. Rinse and repeat.

---

No. You're wrong.

It would be an interesting discussion to have, if people could civilly engage in one. The forum for it to take place though is another matter.

The problem, for me, begins with the marriage of postmodernism and neo-Marxism and their insidious influence on all aspects of society (Edit: which I was suggestive of two pages ago: The Colonial invaders - I saw that. Polyphemus the Cyclops, who likes to eat people, is misunderstood. It is Odysseus, the good guy, who is the invader and not the native inhabitant. Eat the invaders.)

Of which DEI is only one small tip.

Walk away - well, yes, I'm not in a good place right now after State hit two homers.

I don't know whether to celebrate or be sad.

No. I do. It's sad. I'm sad.

I never win anything ever. Ever.

But I'm awarded the 1000th post on an absurd thread that will live in infamy.



And we left Hawaii Cliff.

For California.

So definitely sad.

This ain't no late run Kerfeld. We are in the 1st Quarter of Odysseymania.

Maybe it was Helen of Troy University in Alabama all this time. Don't send an army. Send some NIL funds.

The gym scene isn't making out those people to be terrible it's making them out to be innocent. Oppenheimer feels like he's sentenced them to die a terrible death. And this is underlined by Nolan using his own daughter as the actress whose skins is melting off.

Also, the depiction of Truman is straight from the book/Oppenheimer's perspective as well. The book is actually really good and way crazier if you can believe it.

You're fighting in uphill battle, as Cliff is incapable of nuance/subtlety/gray when it comes to issues like this. Once he's applied his "director X is appeasing leftist Hollywood" take to whatever movie, he will not reverse course, no matter how much evidence is offered to the contrary. He does this on multiple movies. You're of course 100% right, though.

I didn't take that gym scene to depict innocence, but more ignorance.

I'm aware that that particular interaction was from the book, but it is also a very superficial way to depict Truman's thoughts and reactions on the issues he had to deal with. Like, we leave this movie knowing more about Oppenheimer having a side piece than how/why the president did what he did. I hated that aspect of an otherwise good movie.

TC, again bro, as the guy with multiple bans for being rude to people, save the model student act, please. You clearly love the drama you create here daily and have done so for the longest time. I have the freedom to express my opinions here as much as anyone else, and I do so a hell of a lot more tactfully than you do.

lol it is ABOUT Oppenheimer. You leave the movie knowing a lot about Oppenheimer and how he feels about the people in his life. It's based on an incredible book that has a lot more about his "side piece" and the same amount of Truman as the movie….so…If you want a nuanced Truman movie, by all means go write the book or make an adaptation.

I'm aware, but I still think it was knowingly misleading to serve an agenda. TC's "irrefutable" evidence of Oppenheimer having no political slant to it is totally subjective. That's the last I'll say on that.

Cliff.Booth said:

---

I didn't take that gym scene to depict innocence, but more ignorance.

I'm aware that that particular interaction was from the book, but it is also a very superficial way to depict Truman's thoughts and reactions on the issues he had to deal with. Like, we leave this movie knowing more about Oppenheimer having a side piece than how/why the president did what he did. I hated that aspect of an otherwise good movie.

TC, again bro, as the guy with multiple bans for being rude to people, save the model student act, please. You clearly love the drama you create here daily and have done so for the longest time. I have the freedom to express my opinions here as much as anyone else, and I do so a hell of a lot more tactfully than you do.

---

Challenging you is not policing you.

I have never once - not one single time - tried to sway you from posting your opinion. Yet you keep painting me as some kind of tyrant trying to snuff you out.

When, in reality, for the umpteenth time…

You're stating your opinion.

I'm stating my mine.

We simply disagree vehemently, on just about everything under the sun. But I am not - at all - infringing on your right to post here. And the more you keep falsely insisting as much, while endlessly playing the "tactful" victim in the process, the more I want to keep challenging your opinions.

Big picture, for however much of an ******* you find me, I find you to be relentlessly negative, politically obsessed, and far too stubborn/generalizing in your anti-Hollywood crusade.

So why don't we just call it even and agree to never speak again?

That's the only solve I see at this point.