sfcityduck

See this article: http://www.lostsoti.org/TheAntiComicsCrusade.htm On this site: http://www.lostsoti.org/NewsArchive.htm

Agree to disagree. There's a lot of history in those "ages" labels, but it makes more sense to use decades. Adding "ages" just confuses things, especially when they correllate to non-comic events like the Atomic Bomb which did not have that big an influence on comics. Dave Wigransky had the GA from 1938-1942 because that's when comics were born and when the dark content that appealed to him most was put out. He was a pre-Robin Detective type of guy. In contrast, when Lupoff first used the term in modern comic fandon, in the fanzine Comic-Art 1 (Spring 1961), he correlated it to the 1940s. I think Lupoff was right to focus on decades instead of arbitrary age demarcations. For those who haven't read his article "Re-Birth" in Comic-Art, it shows why his writing caused him to be regarded as one of the fathers of modern comic collecting:

It was Dave Wigransky.

As a matter of nomenclature the term “Golden Age” as used by fans at the birth of modern fandom around 1960 or so referred to the “Golden Age of super hero comics” (really DC) and the later term “Silver Age” referred to the reboot of GA heroes and a second flurry of superhero dominance. Terms like “Atomic Age” are not really useful because they bear no relationship too and contradict decades of the shared history and understanding by fandom of the term Golden Age. The reality also is that the decline of the market share of superhero comics also corresponded to the increase of adult comic readers, proliferation of other genres, and probably the biggest overall comic market. It was not until the backlash against comics hit full flower and the CCA was adopted that the superhero revival occurred. Superheroes never went away. New superheroes and revivals occurred throughout the 1950s before and after Showcase 4. PS The first documented use of the term “Golden Age” by a comic collector in writing was in 1948.

Comic collecting started as soon as there were comics. But it did not evolve into modern organized fandom until 1960. But there were comic collectors and dealers earlier.

Except that print appearances pre-dated film appearances of most major Disney Duck characters.

We all have real world experience. Mine is radically different than yours with dating apps as I've been married for almost 30 years. The women I interact with are never trying to impress me romantically. They are my colleagues, clients, friends, acquaintances, wives of friends, parents of my kids friends, etc. And while there is a diversity of social and political views and what is their most satisfying life path, I don't know any who disagree with the notion that its ok to have movies centered on strong female characters, including superhero movies.

The above is what we call an ad hominem logical fallacy. A personal attack not an argument. It's also wrong, unevidenced, and contrary to what you've read here. You are lauding at least one poster for being such a great source of information who keeps telling you that my recitals of corporate decision making are "exactly right."

That was no mischaracterization. Look up thread. You post too much for me to waste my time looking. Just look for the quotes where you relayed the supposed history of ESG, discussed Blackrock, and talked about the timelines of ESG's "peak." I'm sure your memory will be refreshed.

Was she good with Charlie Chan? Have you asked her how she feels about "Chop Chop" from Blackhawk? What about the "Dragon Lady" from Terry and the Pirates? Lots of other Chinese caricatures and stereotypes in US comics and movies from the start. So calling the stereotyping of minorities a "waken American usage," is just plain wrong. It's just the continued influence of our racist and bigoted past. Did she like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? But as a counter-anecdote, I know many Americans of Asian descent who are really happy to see folks who share their heritage being represented in movies, even ones titled "Crazy Rich Asians." The women I know who are raising families do not feel diminished by the fact that there are successful women made a different choice. I believe they are glad that the choices are available. I certainly know many feminists who are very unhappy with Hollywood's fixation on sexy women actresses and the reduction of women to sex objects. But I've never heard anyone who elected to be a stay at home mom complain it is slight on staying at home. The movies that start with a single woman unsatisfied with her love life usually end with a marriage proposal and a desire to raise family. Just watch Hallmark. I certainly am well aware of many "tough" female CEOs who wear their expensive clothing (including GASP! a pant suit). And sadly there are lots of underlings in corporate America who act timorous towards the CEO. Its called group think and too common. So I'm not sure why that's offensive. By definition, for a woman to make the journey from top to bottom in a male dominated world can lead to an attitude that some might find "tough" - look at Nancy Pelosi and Nicki Haley in politics - but most women I know find that inspirational. Again, the idea you have choices and can be who you want to be is powerfully positive.

Given the corporate fixation on profits, I believe we can safely assume that the data shows that they are more interested in those kind of movies. Anecdotally, Barbie certainly suggests they would be also. But we are not talking all women, so the anecdotes we all voice are not real helpful. There are always counter anecdotes.

By claiming it is a new concept and Blackrock et al are controlling the economic world, and by extension the whole world, through that concept. As to the MCU, you contend it has destroyed the marketability of Disney's movies. In reality, its not new or controlling. It has some influences, but not to the degree you claim and not with the negative consequences you are pushing.

No. This comment is historically incorrect. Affirmative Action was developed as a legal remedy to combat systemic institutional racism largely in the educational context. Generations of systemic generational racism. It was intended to offer injunctive relief for the discrimination which denied generations of qualified candidates opportunity, pushing down minority communities, by giving minorities the opportunity to obtain opportunities and credentials they otherwise would not have absent that relief. Credentials and opportunities which are essential in this country to economic opportunity. Let's face it, the US was founded on a bedrock of racism which saw some people as "free and full citizens" and others not because of their race. We thought we solved that problem when the forces of freedom won the Civil War. But that was very short victory as southern states adopted Jim Crow laws and continued to deny that blacks were entitled to full rights. This perpetuated and spread racist attitudes. It was not until Brown v. Board of education in the 1950s and the subsequent courts order implementing Affirmative Action remedies that the problem of discrimination in education began to be redressed. It was a successful remedy in that it did create more opportunity and eroded the foundation that supported racist attitudes. In fact, it was so successful, that the concept was imported into other contexts. Probably too broadly in practice for some contexts. It is not an inherently flawed concept. Quite the contrary when properly applied. But AA has zero to do with corporate officer hiring.

Another anecdote. Does anyone use dating apps anymore? Not the youth. In any event, anglers offer what they think the fish want. Your post is not logic or science.

This is the most interesting stat. Because the overwhelming majority of folks on this site are Boomers or GenXers. And the clear takeaway from this stat is that our views are the least important of potential moviegoers if the goal is attracting new viewers for superhero movies. Which sort of renders every opinion offered on this thread irrelevant. LOL!

Have you ever been part of a corporate hiring process? I have. No one is hiring based on "math vs. merit." There is no "math" in hiring a corporate officer, lawyer, etc. There's just experience, education, personality, attractiveness (this may be the worst and most influential hiring factor), reptuation, recommendations, and other "soft" factors that are often not predictive of anything. These are judgment calls not science. You never know how someone will do in a new role because past performance is no guarantee of future success. CEO history teaches us, even at Disney, that a hand-picked successor - a no. 2 in waiting, may become an example of the Peter Principle when promoted to no. 1. That does not mean that the no. 2 was "unqualified," such a person may well have been the most qualified from a "math" perspective, it means he was unsuccessful. The notion that there are "unqualified" versus "qualified" candidates is an entirely false premise. Usually there are many "qualified" candidates - and the art form is to try to predict which would be successful. What the anti-bias training seeks to do is cause hirers to realize that just because you had a good run under a white man does not mean that a non-white man cannot do the job. If you look at the CEOs in corporate America today, you will see that there are many examples of female and minority CEOs who are very successful and also examples of those that aren't. Just like with white males. Which is the sole point of such hiring: Ensuring that irrelevant factors don't blind you to good candidates. Frankly, to my eyes your view of corporate hiring comes across as second hand message board info not consistent with the actual experience that most of us in those worlds have had.

No. You are saying that ESG has had a significant negative influence on the MCU. You have made that argument by based on a portrayal of ESG as something which it is not. You have done this to support an argument against centering movies on strong female characters. You have voiced a number of notions about women which are not really germane to supporting any arguments you are making about the MCU. Not in parallel, you have also voiced the view, with which we all agree, that bad writing is undesirable. But having women or minority centered movies is not inherently "bad writing." So even if ESG has led to the MCU having more female or minority characters in lead roles, which I personally think is not as big a factor as profit seeking, then that's not a problem with ESG. The problem is the writing choices made. Great stories can be told about anything. Bad stories can be told about the greatest subjects. That's on the writers, directors, and overseers (if they have that level of micro-management control).

I like that you keep saying this about my posts but these concepts are well known so I am not going to pat myself on the back LOL! I am big into reality based thinking not flights of fancy.

Then why do you care about the MCU and want your kids to see movies. I think you’re both way overblown on the movie industry (of which Weinstein was an exceptionally bad example) and other industries which are just as bad or worse.

First, everyone agrees that poor writing is a problem that needs to be avoided. But having strong female or minority characters as the lead characters is not poor writing. There are bad white male centered movies. So poor writing is not a relevant factor supporting the notion superhero movies should not center on women or minorities. When hiring a CEO there are never really “best” candidates. There are multiple candidates who can do the job. Hiring is ultimately just a choice between candidates who both are qualified on paper - leap of faith. Efforts to eliminate gender and racial bias in hiring seek to eliminate the attitudes and blinders which cause folks to default to people who look like themselves or the people they have always had in the position, as well as conscious bigotry. It is not about hiring unqualified folks. So your argument is based on a false assumption.

Squirrels. We have all heard of the casting couch. But we also have all heard and seen or heard of sexual harassment in our own industries. It is indemic. It was mostly a product of male privilege / toxic masculinity / power trips etc. (pick your terms) which are not unique to Hollywood. Weinstein was mostly not a Disney problem. Read the filings in the NY venues suits against Weinstein if you want details. None of this is germane to the discussion. You are just throwing mud against the wall in the hope some sticks. But it backfires. Because if the problem is a culture of sexual harassment and oppression then we should be focusing on solutions such as empowering women culturally, politically. Etc.

Your questions are not logical because they identify only the challenge faced by the MCU not the opportunity it is pursuing. The questions you should be asking are: Are there more women than men in the domestic market? What attributes attract women to superhero movies (or sports if you think it relevant)? What can a movie maker do to increase the appeal of a superhero movie to women? THEN ask yourself the same question about domestic moviegoers of Asian ethnicity, male and female, and you will begin to understand why the MCU has elected to center their movies around more than white men.

The question you ask is one of audience demographics. It can only be accurately answered by an actual survey of the audience. Discussing it here will yield only anecdotes. If audience composition has been studied (and Disney probably has) the numbers are either proprietary or somewhere on the internet. So go look for the numbers. You can find them if they are accessible and get an answer to your question. Discussion without data is not really helpful. The fact you are not bringing data does not help your case. it also misses the point. The data relevant to this discussion is whether MCU movies with strong female characters getting extensive screen time do better with women than those that do not. The best source for that info would be tv shows. Why? The data is gathered. There are fewer entry barriers to tv viewing. That comic collectors are largely male is the challenge the MCU is trying to overcome by centering films on strong female characters not a relevant data point on MCU audience composition.

But the thing is that no one I go with to MCU movies is a comic book collector. The vast majority of MCU movie goers don't read comic books. The reason why the MCU worked so well initially is that you did not need to have read the comics. As the movies became much more of an inside baseball experience, like with the Infinity Stones, the less engaging the movies became for non-collectors. And since I stopped buying Marvel Comics regularly when I went to law school in 1989, I was in that group. The MCU downturn for me occurred when "events" dominated the MCU especially when the event was as uncompelling as I found the "snap" story to be. Everyone dies -- no not really -- is my LEAST favorite comic story trope.

Double negative?