sfcityduck

Isn't that a description of the best Marvel comic and MCU storylines? We could all list a lot of contrary anecdotes in the world of business. Not at all convinced that either sex has a genetic competence edge as a CEO. And politics. There are many examples of tough female leaders who seemed less concerned with "the community" than other priorities. <cough cough> Margaret Thatcher <cough cough> aka the "Iron Lady" <cough cough>

I just want to thank the creator of the thread for finding a topic where Prince Namor and I are on common ground (which we aren't on his Kirby is God and Lee is Satan threads). It restores my faith in the notion that we're all pretty similar. Too bad he has me on "ignore" and will never know that we share common ground on this topic. Another example of how putting on blinders really does blind you to not only the uncomfortable moments but also the positive ones.

How about Barbie?

I have never walked in a theatre to watch a Marvel or Star Wars movie without at least one woman (almost always my wife, variously also my friends - usually couples - sister, and nieces). When there's a Marvel movie out around Christmas or July its a family affair. At home, we usually go with other couples. Don't know where you live in Canada, but the culture of your area may have "nurtured" the desire to see Marvel movies out of the women you know. I've never had a need to drag anyone to a Marvel movie. As for your genetic "nature" argument, I'm completely unaware of any studies which conclude that there's a genetic difference between men and women which impacts desire to see Marvel movies. So you'll have to cite that one to me ... if it exists. And if it does, I'm sure I'll enjoy seeing what the scientific reaction is. A person's physical sex and base sexual orientation, I concede, are dictated by genetics. Folks are born male and gay. But "gender" as it relates to social and cultural differences is a social construct not a biological one. To give an example, just because you are born a woman (or gay for that matter) does not mean you want to wear a dress and read Little Women.

You are ruining this thread with your serious story driven critique instead of blaming the film on the ESG illuminati.

People disliked Lennon's work when he was with Yoko? News to me. Sure people blamed Yoko for breaking up the Beatles (which was unfair), but I don't think that bled into a dislike of Lennon's solo output. Plastic Ono Band has long been recognized as one of the greatest classic rock albums of all time. Lennon churned out many classic songs like Imagine, Working Class Hero, Instant Karma, Jealous Guy etc. as a solo act. I can see people getting fatigued with the similarity of the "sound" of his last few albums, something that happened to McCartney around the 80s, and also to Harrison. I personally tend to grow bored of musical acts when they just keep churing out the same stuff without evolving.

"Bad storytelling" is the product put out by a media company. "Fatigue" is what viewers feel when they are no longer excited by the product put out by a media company. No one is confusing those two concepts and labeling "bad storytelling" as audience "fatigue." But "bad storytelling" does NOT mean centering a film on strong women characters as some here appear to be arguing. Nor is "bad storytelling" departing from Marvel Comics' "heritage" view of the characters by introducing a <gasp> Latino Spider-Man or a female Captain Marvel. "Bad storytelling" is simply failing to tell a story which is sufficiently entertaining, meaningful, or engaging.

The late 1940s saw Timely shutter all superhero comics, DC shutter all superhero titles but Superman and Batman led titles (Sensation was shuttered but WW survived due to the contract for the rights), MLJ had already shuttered its superhero titles, Harvey switched Black Cat to horror etc. In the first half of the 1950s we saw a failed Atlas revival. Yeah … there was superhero fatigue. Audiences were moving on to PCH, Romance, Teen, and other genres. The superhero boom lasted about a decade. MCU is still very strong economically but not as strong as the glory days. So what? That reflects the inherent weakness of the unaging superhero concept - the characters have little real growth. The MCU didn’t really develop its characters it told the proven stories and killed them off or rebooted them. Will we see a MCU implosion? I think so. It would be a healthy development.

A wise man said: Those stories have been told. Those actors are aging out of their roles. And you can't go home again ... without another reboot.

But that movie is going to lose money. How can you say its good!?! LoL!

As I previously said: The MCU has hit the same problem that Marvel hit in the 1970s. Although origin stories are fresh and interesting most of the subsequent stories are pretty repetitive "villain of the month" stories. Ultimately, that becomes so repetitive that you either have to bring the story forward in time (usually that results in marrying off your heroes) or do events (which get repetitive) or reboot (an admission you got nothing new to say). Marvel has done all three. The MCU basically started strong by sticking to the 60s stories and then fell into the "event" trap. The Spiderverse went with giving up after three movies and then moving to a reboot. FF failed once and then failed again. None of this involved ESG. It's just the result of running out of the classic material, lack of ideas, and too much dedication to the same old characters. Where the MCU has shined since the big event is with Loki and WandaVision (same is true for Star Wars with Andor). Trying out fun new ideas that proved really interesting. But those stories could not have been told in movies. Movies are harder than TV because they are compact. It was a mistake to mix the Subby debut and origin story with Black Panther. Ant-Man and Wasp have always been challenging characters who didn't work outside of a team - they milked it a bit too far. Eternals was a lousy comic and lousy movie. Really hope DC learned the lesson and we don't get "Fourth World" attempts. Captain Marvel was a good movie IMHO. Guardians didn't really fit in with the 60s vibe the MCU was going for. I've bot MCU fatigue. Personally, I think Disney needs to cut back on Marvel a bit and find its next big thing.

You do realize that you just refuted yourself by proving that I did not fabricate that you are claiming ESG was controlling the world. That is, as you admit, your argument. So why are you accusing me of "fabrication" by pointing out what your argument is?

What I don't think is registering with you is that not only is a former Disney executive telling you that "ESG" is not the new and revolutionary concept you think it is but others, including myself with 25 years of experience in the Directors & Officers and Financial Institutions liability world. You are also being told it is not the driving force you think it is controlling the world. Far from it. A lot of what we call "ESG" was previously under the umbrella of "socially responsible investing." The Social responsibility concept got a big boost because of the anti-Apartheid movement in the 1970s during which folks realized that refusing to invest in companies which did business in South Africa created economic pressure for change. Ultimately, economic pressure ended apartheid. Environmental responsibility has also been around for decades but the increasing concern regarding climate change has certainly elevated that as a priority compared. Corporate governance is a constant concern for corporations and a frequent topic in shareholder derivative litigation. None of this is new. None of this scary or threatening. None of this is Illuminati stuff. As for Disney's recent efforts, female and minority oriented movies can be huge hits. They may risk boycotts, but that's a risk in a political world. Many on this site were lambasting Miles Morales before it came out because they couldn't wrap their heads around Peter Parker not being Spider-Man. They thought it was pandering and said they wouldn't go. So what - the MM movies made Sony $1B. And there's Barbie - another film folks on this site panned and predicted would fail - it didn't. Nothing wrong with Disney wanting to jump on those wagons. Could they do it better than Marvels? Absolutely - they could do all their movies better and for me the very best movies are still Sony's first Spiderman trio. Should Disney not try? That would be foolish.

No. I was pulled into yours. You guys were lambasting ESG etc. long before I showed up.

Or profit from it.

What was being regulated with that DB/DWS fine was a misrepresentation in advertising materials. It was not a fine for not doing ESG. Do really think the regulators should give a free pass for lying in ads or financial disclosures? For me free speech and free markets do not mean free fraud rights. Regulation is necessary. For DB the fine is small but the adverse publicity might deter future fraud. Or not. That same day the SEC also fined DB for failing to comply with anti-money laundering laws. You ok with that fine?

First, ESG is now pretty much dead as an investing tent pole (not that it ever was). Second, someone who believes in a free market and free speech would be fine with investors investing for whatever reasons they want. It’s ok to buy or not buy from a store because you don’t like the politics of the owner, right? That applies to investing in it also.

ESG is politics. The Bud commercial is politics. Human nature is politics. Economic theory is politics. Get back to me when you discuss science.

Roy, I generally really appreciate your insights on comic collecting. I disagree with your political views. The excerpt of your lengthy post above is a good illustration as to why I find the views you are expressing as wholly unpersuasive. First, “free market” does not mean what you think it does. A “full free market” is one that is free of government regulation. It is not one that is free of corporate monopoly, oligarchy, or concentration of wealth. “Free market” advocates want corporations free to achieve the things you dislike. Those of us who support government regulation, such as anti-trust and unfair competition laws, are the ones seeking to curb some of the problems you identify. Second, your concern is not about an unpalatable product being forced on everyone. The taste of Bud did not change when Anheiser-Busch used a trans person in a commercial. Your concern is free speech: You do not want views you disagree with being aired in movies you haven’t even seen yet or groups you don’t like being represented in a Bud commercial. Corporate interests have always affected the art form of Timely/Marvel comics. From day one because Goodwin wanted to jump on the superhero trend he thought would bring him profits - which it did then, and again when he jumped back on the trend in the early 60s. So? You can always read Cerebus if you want a creato controlled comic free of all restraint. Corporate produced comics aren’t that.

The pandemic adversely impacted all movie and theme park businesses. Is Disney doing worse than others? Its results are better than Warner, for example. You are looking at isolated movies. All companies have some failures. To support your assertion you need took at the Q reports for the companies in the sector. Folks who second guess a particular movie are generally back seat drivers focused on their own nostalgia. Being a critic is easy. It tells you nothing about the overall business.

This thread is bizarre. A strange mixture of naivety, conspiracy, and lack of common sense. Corporations exist to pursue profits. That motivation almost always overrides all other considerations. Corporate policies and strategies are formed by people who get paid a lot of money and want to make more money. So much so that that on a regular basis we see management steer corporations into illegal actions designed to improperly inflate profits or stock value and the resulting securities class actions and shareholder derivative lawsuits. Media companies, like other corporations, seek profits. All corporations, including media companies, believe reaching new customers (audiences for media companies)is a key to expanding profits. So why is anyone surprised that Barbie or the Marvels were made? Timely/Marvel has been chasing trends since 1939, and it is no coincidence that Ms. Marvel was created after the first issue of Ms, magazine came out with a Wonder Woman comic section in it. It was a play for profits, so too Spider-woman, Dazzler, Miles Morales, Power-Man and Iron Fist etc. etc. ESG is an acronym for concepts which have both existed for a long time and which are largely unimportant to corporations unless they are viewed as good for business. Contrary to what folks on this thread seem to believe, in the world of Directors and Officers liability ESG has not been viewed as the alarming or driving force folks here seems to think it is. Barbie made a lot of money. Expect more female empowerment films. Miles Morales etc.made a lot of money, expect more non-white male superhero movies. The guys stuck in the 60s can grouse but corporations will chase profits. Which is why there is no shortage of “traditional” content because that too makes money. Is any of this content any “good”? That’s a subjective consideration which corporations only really care about if it furthers the business plan - which in some cases it does. ’nuff said.

Wow!

It is fairly normal for the back-up features to not make the cover. Aquaman, for example, never made a cover during the GA in North America. Instead, the heavy hitters, and let's be real and admit that Human Torch as a member of the FF was a heavy hitter. At Marvel, Iron Man was on the cover for, by my count, 31 straight issues. During that run he kept the Watcher backup entirely off the cover and when Captain America became the back-up in 1965 he only got partial covers for about the first year.

Pm me when you do the sales thread. I’d hate to miss it LOL!

The early bird ... PM me your address, and preferred payment method.