Smersh

Looks like Hal's, er.... compensating.

Just say no to thread necromancy.

Walmart can inspire plenty of rage, I assure you.

I never said that you would "throw a new pricing model out there just to do it."

I would instead suggest that you familiarize yourself with the concept of the loss leader. The PS3 works as a present-day example.

The only MMO with any sort of appreciable pricing power is the 800 pound gorilla. Until and unless they change their pricing for monthly subscription games, you won't see an industry-wide change in subscription fees for MMOs.

You're stating your preferences as fact without evidence to back it up.

You should feel free to do that, but until you can show evidence that it doesn't work, I'm pretty much free to call you on it.

Your predictive skills are amazing.

Can I have some winning lottery numbers while you're at it?

I think what Durakken may be referring to is that several of the books on Norse myth I've read have specifically made Ragnarok a transition to the new Christian world. After Ragnarok's over, there's only an Adam and Eve type left and it goes from there.

Now, I haven't done any major research on the subject in terms of primary sources, but I'd be willing to believe that addition was made to ease the transition to Christianity for the Norse, much the same way that Brigid was made a saint by the Catholic church.

Of course, that just means that Norse myth was made somewhat compatible with Christianity, not that it was integrated into Christian 'canon.' Durakken is just overstating his case and not backing off from his original statement. It's par for the course.

My rule of thumb is this: The only time that race should be considered when casting a film is if racial themes (Discrimination, Jim Crow, ethnic clashes, etc.) are core to the film. Note that I say considered - this is not carte blanche to discriminate in casting, and I would love to see a film about race with truly race-blind casting (i.e. you have to infer what race the character is supposed to be based solely on how other characters treat them).

So, for the Last Airbender and Dragonball (neither of which I saw), I don't see a problem with that casting per se, UNLESS there was a studio directive to cast a white lead over an Asian one for purposes of marketing (i.e. someone with money said that an Asian lead couldn't put butts into seats.) I'm not privy to those behind the scenes discussions, but I'm willing to bet that was the case because I know Hollywood's penchant for whitewashing. And I'm sure that the idea of using black or Latino leads never crossed their minds. The movies are not about race, so race-blind casting would be perfect for them, but I don't trust Hollywood to have actually made those casting choices in a progressive way, basing their picks on the people who could act the role and pull off the physicality of it well.

TLR - the race of the characters was probably changed not because Hollywood chose the best actors, but because of beliefs about the marketability of those films based in racism.

There's much more to it than just that, but that's wandering quite far afield, and beyond the scope of this board.

From what I hear, Idris Elba filled the role well, acting the part and inhabiting the role physically. What more can you ask for?

Also - I'm waiting for Conan to come out so we can all have this same damn discussion over again.

I want you to think very carefully about this.

You are saying a black man can't do a job (actor) because of the color of his skin.

I don't particularly care how you dress up you statements beyond that point.

When you find yourself having to say this, you should really reconsider what you have to say.

The fail in this post is strong.

I'd never gotten into Buffy and Angel at all. (People who knew me at the time kept telling me it was something I would have loved, but I've never been hugely TV oriented.) When Firefly came out, my only exposure to it was the ads that ran while I was watching 24 (the first season of which was great TV, but after that...)

The ads that Fox ran tried too hard - they were emphasizing that it was sexy sexy sexy, and fast paced... and the practical upshot was that they made Firefly look like an Asylum production. I even remarked to my brother at that time how bad it looked.

I actually watched Firefly on DVD around the time Serenity came out - I saw Serenity first, being hauled by Firefly fans to see it opening weekend. And I do in fact get upset by how poorly Fox treated it.

Dollhouse, of course, was a clear case of Whedon's original vision being compromised for the sake of Fox, who mistreated the show anyway. The difference was, it wasn't nearly as good.

Ryan Reynolds would have been a great Wally West. Hal Jordan? Not so much.

I'd heard of Firefly, but I didn't watch it when it came out because not only did Fox move it around, their promotional material was horrible and it looked like something I would hate.

Wait, Sailor Freddie Mercury, what?

...I should wake up before reading this thread.