sfcityduck

Already $900M+ globally. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/barbie-box-office-hits-900-million-1235550913/amp/ Epic fail for those who predicted it would bomb.

For comic books, my Mt. Rushmore would likely be Eisner, Kirby, Barks, and Kurtzman. But in all honesty the Mt. Rushmore for newspaper cartoonists is more impressive and influential: McCay, Foster, Raymond, and Caniff/Sickles.

p.s Great topic idea! I am surprised no one thought of it before.

I think you are too focused on character first appearances. I also get the sense you are not as into GA. Consider these books: 31 - Detective 31 33 - Detective 33 86 - Flash Comics 86 Last issues can be very significant. I view All-star 57 as more important than All-Star 58, for example. Which is why for 89 I would pick Marvel Family 89 over Fin Fang Foom (really?). I also think you could be more creator focused like for 20 going with Swamp Thing 20 over Scorpion (who?).

I'm not defending the show. I'm just objecting to the notion that the job is to "fulfill fan expectations." The real job is to put out a good product, whether the fans expect it or not. If this guy failed - so be it. But the notion that you just engage in fan service is a bad one. "Secret Invasion" is very very low on the list of Marvel properties I'd adapt into a movie. (Maybe above Contest of Champions.) It was bad fan service as a comic, really just a publisher money grab fake event. I suspect you can't make a good version of this story. I applaud Marvel for putting out shows that took the risk of not being an adaptation of a comic - especially since they worked.

Fans don't write movies. If they did, we'd miss out on a lot of good movies and shows. Star Wars universe is a great example. We'd have a lot more fan service Obi Wan shows and not have Andor or Rogue. I applaud a studio for taking a risk instead of giving us what we expect. Loki and Wandavision are other great examples. Sometimes risks don't work for all fans. That's ok.

Not an argument. Not even cogent. Who's the Wizard of Oz?

That's exactly how I feel about certain political media outlets in the U.S., so we have that in common. Yet, they still get big viewerships even after they are determined by courts to have lied or admitted wrongdoing with massive settlements. Maybe all those folks aren't "smart+fun" but I doubt it. In my experience, folks from all over the political spectrum and interests can be quite "smart+fun," even those who find "preachy" things interesting.

The differences between the comic market in 1963 and today are due to a lot of factors, but concern about the content of X-Men, a not so subtle agenda against bigotry and racism, isn't one of them.

Not at all true. No subtlety at all. Just proud disdain. Sgt. Fury 6 from 1964 features Fury calling out a white soldier for being a “died-in-the-wool low-down bigot” for refusing to sleep in a bunk bed with a black soldier: Stan's Soapbox from 1968 after assassinations of MLK and Robert Kennedy: A fan wrote Stan in a 1969 letter column to complain about Marvel’s support for civil rights by stating “I’m not a racist, just a concerned Marvelite who doesn’t want his favorite comic company to be ruined by something that doesn’t concern you as comic publishers.” Sound familiar? Stan's response: “But, such matters as racism and inequality do concern us, Tim — not just as comic mag artists and writers and publishers, but as human beings. Certainly it’s never been our intention to portray all, or even most, white Americans as hard-core bigots or screaming racists. Maybe it’s just that we think that many people in the land of the free have too long turned their backs or averted their eyes to the more unpleasant things that are going on every day. Maybe we felt we could do something — even within the relatively humble format of what used to be called a ‘comic-book’ – to change things just a bit for the better. If we failed, let’s just say that we’d at least like to have it said of us that — we tried.”

I've read that a lot of the political controversy about this movie - the stuff we don't want to talk about here - got started by political activists making panicky predictions about the movie's content without yet having seen the movie. Their comments on the content proved incorrect hysteria. As did their predictions it would fail financially. The mantra "get **** go broke" has been further refuted by this movie's inexorable rise past a $1B+ gate. Anyone going to Barbie volunteered for the experience they are getting. Same is true for Marvel movies. Marvel has been "preaching" at its readers for 60 years or so, and some fans have been complaining about that the entire time. Fans can vote with their pocketbooks, but that often is not enough to preclude what they don't like. Marvel long long ago took the position that it's job is NOT to be "neutral."

Any parents who bring pre-teens to a PG-13 have no right to be surprised.

Do you really feel I misdefined “Misandry”? mis·an·dry /məˈsandrē/ noun dislike of, contempt for, or ingrainedprejudice against men (i.e. the male sex). "poorly disguised misandry"

To the contrary I have stated the correct definition of words like “misandry” to support that you misused it. You are running from that definition.

That is not an apples to apples comparison. You are not offering a logical explanation. Why not just state your argument and support?

If you cannot explain an argument you are not making one.

They go to both to be preached at because some find it entertaining … and listen to talk radio, watch fake news, listen to certain types of music and artists, go to to watch certain types of tv, pay to see certain politicians speak, etc. Love of being preached at is all around us in America.

How?

“Gaslighting”? Argument requires explanation.

Which does not prove your point.

I am pointing out your misuse (or misunderstanding of words) not debating psychology theory. The phrase “Internalized sexism” has a definite meaning but you can decide for yourself whether you agree with the theory. Misusing words is different than disagreeing with what they say.

“Hypocrisy” also does not mean what you think it does.

No they aren’t. But they are an example of one of the many places that Americans like to get preached at. Others include talk radio, political rallies, fake news shows, country music etc.

How? Your logic is failing here.

C’mon, let’s use words right. Strictly speaking the word “Misandry” means hatred of men not disdain towards a small subset of men who want to nail themselves to a cross and claim victimhood because Barbie is allegedly threatening or persecuting them. When a man, which I guess the poster is, disdains men with those feelings it does not mean he hates himself.