For those who don't know, the poor rating will not make sense. For those who've heard but think its no big deal, I disagree with you. For those who know and care, please help stand up with me.

It is fact, not speculation, that John Nash was at very least bisexual, and the tendency to suppress this fact only adds to the stigma of shame thrust upon those of us who are not happily heterosexual. The people who write the scripts insist on changing facts to make the movie more mainstream and profitable, to make it more palatable for those whom share distaste for people who don't fit into how their egos require.

It is a shame, because this movie could have been groundbreaking beyond its intriguing portrayal of a brilliant man's inner turmoil, done so well otherwise. You cannot use an excuse that revealing a complex man's complex natures would only give the story too much distraction.

I would have enjoyed the movie otherwise but found the omission disgusting. Much like 'The Martian Child' by David Gerrald that was successfully translated to bigscreen, but because it would be 'unacceptable' to have characters 'marred' by so-called character-defects that would reduce their likability, well we certainly can't allow children to have such role models, can we?

I am fortunate to be well-educated and well-read, to have known that gay or bisexual men can be awesome and powerful, not just amusing. There are plenty who need the truth more than the majority demand placation.