Glenn Beck: The liberal media hates "Spider-Man" — Page 3

I have to be honest - Beck's praise for this show makes me want to see it even less (if that were possible). People are allowed to voice their opinion, including Beck. But the fact that I've never heard him voice a theater opinion before (despite saying that he's been going to the theater for 30 years) and that he forced political rhetoric on the show makes me doubtful.

"But no, you liberals want to smack down anything that you don't agree with. I assume you want the theater all to yourself. Conservatives can't participate in theater events."

Lol it's nonsensical hyperbole like this that makes it hard to take Goth (and Beck) seriously.

Fine, we'll take the conservative media approach:

Conservatives can't participate in theater events.

Why can't they, goth? I thought you liked the theatre. Or are you no longer a conservative? Broadway has obviously brainwashed you with their gay agenda and recruited you as a liberal. Hand over your gun and face the wall. Just kidding! First and Fourth Amendments!

---

A liberal pundit might make entirely different assertions that are crazy, or s/he might not, but what Beck says is non-sensical. Sporkgoddess, it's just like when your wanna-be buttboy (whom you wisely rejected), HDThoreau wrote that the Chorus Line revival wasn't a huge hit because liberals found it didn't reaffirm their beliefs of the '70s. He wrote that without seeing it, but he knew it was "wonderful." See? That's the kind of crazy stuff people here react to.

---

“One reason ‘Spider-Man’ is being panned,” he began, upon which he assumed a French accent, “‘Well, it’s not, well this isn’t theater! It’s music by Bono! Who is Bono? Of course he does a lot of charity which I like, I think he was down in Haiti, but he’s still rock!’”

Returning to his normal voice, Mr. Beck added, “And then you have, it’s a comic book character, and too much action and flying around and they’re trying to cheapen the theater by spending 50 million dollars. So you have all the snotty stuff that regular Americans won’t understand.”



Goth, if that is not offensive to you, as a theatergoer, I don't know what is. Regardless of whether you like Beck or not, he is demeaning the art of theater/your opinions - calling everything else snobbish, or as conservatives like to say "elitist" - not to mention calling a large portion of our society idiots, or incapable of understanding what he calls "snotty theater." That to me is appalling.

---

Updated On: 1/13/11 at 05:21 PM

Spork: Yes I know many on this board will say the same thing, but we don't have a national radio show that is heard by millions of people. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that most avid theatergoers - the ones he refers to as snobby - don't listen to him on a regular basis. Rather, it's the "regular Americans" as he calls them, that usually listens to him. So in that sense, he just called a huge majority of his listening basis stupid.

---

He also liked Lincoln Center's South Pacific revival and Michael Buble. And he's made a dozen or so novels by various thriller writers into New York Times bestsellers, some of them #1 bestsellers.

Like Oprah, he gets people to read books and see and hear things.

---

Nicely done, darquegk!

---

I don't think he met with any of the actors, at least not according to the article. I suspect most of them wanted absolutely nothing to do with him. I sure wouldn't.

Well, I was going to launch this big diatribe to respond to goth's rant - then realized I have better things to do (like wash my hair). I've sworn off "hate politics" for this millenium. Goth, bash whoever you want; it just doesn't matter, nor does it produce anything of quality. If that's what keeps you warm in the winter, go for it. It doesn't, however, convince.

Never try to teach a pig, etc. etc. I'm done with this thread, thank you.

Updated On: 1/14/11 at 10:49 AM

To the best of my knowledge, the ending of Parker's marriage by a deal with the devil was not a choice made for political reasons. The marriage had become inconvenient to the writers, not to the two characters. A divorce between two people who have for the past several years (several here actually meaning nearly fifty now, though time hasn't passed at that rate in the comics) had a relatively good relationship might have been hard to justify for the characters themselves, given how iconic Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson/Watson-Parker had been. So rather than deal with the brunt of creating a failing relationship and a divorce subplot, the writers had the Devil retcon Mary Jane back out of Peter's life.

It's hard to consider that they made that choice to avoid offending or alienating someone, considering that most people considered it the worst plotline in several decades, since the "Which Spider-Man is the clone, and which one is Peter Parker" debacle that stretched from the mid-Seventies onward.