VintageComics

I have been on every single dating app over the years. YOU CANNOT IMAGINE HOW MANY WOMEN PUT THIS STUFF THAT PAQART WROTE ABOVE IN THEIR DATING APPS. They write things like: "I want a real man who takes the lead." "I want a man's man." "I want a man, not a boy." "I want a real man who can think independently" "I want my man to be a man so I can be a women." "I want a man to make me feel safe and secure so that I can be a woman for him" We are literally living in the most dysfunctional time in human history, where the media is telling men what women want, is telling women what men want but when women are crying out AROUND AND IN SPITE OF THE MEDIA for what THEY want, NOBODY IS LISTENING. And then we label the men as misogynists for pointing it out. Go argue with these women about what they want, not with me. THIS IS literally a CLOWN WORLD we live in right now.

Vehicle / strategy = Tomato / tomato. I'm well aware of what ESG is but I know that many aren't. The "chicken or the egg" part of the discussion is precisely the discussion we were trying to have, but some people had trouble even believing ESG was real, so thank you for validating that for everyone. How do you prove whether something reflects or affects policy would be a 150 page discussion for each example we chose to discuss, so we can't have that discussion here. We KNOW that part of corporate sustainability influences hiring processes, therefore ESG affects hiring processes. Specifically in this thread, this seems to be the simplified flowchart: ESG >> Corporations >> Employees >> Movies >> Viewers So the question I have, is does ESG affect the art form (or end product) of a company?

Thank you! This is great info. I'm going to digest everything you've shared and reply later this afternoon! But thank you for sharing.

At this point, I believe the "culture of sexual harrassment" is exaggerated. It may be found more often in Hollywood, New York, San Francisco,and similar places, but in other places, it is much rarer. Even in Hollywood, there are quite a few well-known players who absolutely reject the Weinsteins of the world. These men and women do what they can to stop mistreatment of others if it comes to their attention and they are in a position to do something about it. The Weinsteins (and worse, the Bill Cosbys) exist, but their numbers are not as large as purported. They get outsize coverage because of the scandalous nature of their behavior and their rarefied positions (note the word "rarefied") give them opportunities that others thankfully don't have. A couple levels lower and you have colleagues trying to date each other at the office. I've seen that at a couple places I worked at, but as far as I could tell, the people involved wanted to date each other. I have no idea how many unsuccessful and unwanted attempts were made because my time was spent working or with my family, not socializing with colleagues. The only exception is racquetball, which I played often with a couple of my fellow animators on Space Jam. All three of us were married, so none of us were a part of the dating scene. I genuinely don't want to continue to derail the topic to talk about sex but I've travelled extensively to every major US city many times over for comic cons, so I was speaking not only from extensive personal experiences but also from insight gained from spending time in these places and developing deep, lasting relationships with people in those places. I also tend to be a bit of a historian on Hollywood due to my love for Vintage things and Vintage culture, hence the name. Sex is very much more "in your face" there than in any other city I've been to, whether it's Seattle,Chicago, NYC. Go to ANY nightclub, bougie dinner place or bar and you'll see what I mean. Most "fun" places look like a watered down version of a Great Gatsby or Wolf Of Wall Street movie, quite literally and after last call? Forget about it. Everyone is high and drunk and looking for where to go next. "Boys Town" is the LGBTQ's nickname for the area on Santa Monica Blvd in West Hollywood and it's one "in your face", unpretentious example. It's the largest LGBBTQ community in the US and walking down the street is an experience, especially at night. West Hollywood in general though, is highly sexualized and is quite literally a world to itself. It's the epicentre of debauchery and in my opinion only rivalled by Vegas or Miami which tie for 2nd IMO. Just walk the streets of West Hollywood one night on a weekend and everyone will see what I mean. The reason? The most "attractive" people in the world move there to make it in entertainment, so is it any wonder that their looks become the vehicles to success? It's literally supermodel central, every day, all day. OK, carry on.

If you hire based on math vs merit, you are inadvertently hiring unqualified people over qualified people because merit is no longer the only criteria. This actually is borne out with scientific studies in egalitarianism in some of the countries with the greatest egalitarian laws like Scandinavia and other parts of Europe (and I think Paqart can speak well to this, because he spent a lot of time studying and living in Europe). But I will say that this isn't a discussion point for this thread, or this forum. I simply brought it up as a supporting point to my greater point that putting anyone into a role that isn't well suited for them, simply to represent them is counter productive to the greater cause. It literally puts a focus on the flaws in the end product rather than on the message they're trying to convey. It may not be evident to everyone, but this is actually what the scientific literature supports. And quite frankly, what viewers have been saying about the MCU for a few years now.

Can I focus on this for a second, because I really think it's the "white elephant" in the room. Most people "on the other side" of my points are trying to paint the opinions of people on THIS side as though we are trying to uncover a conspiracy. NOBODY has been talking about conspiracy. More importantly, nobody on THIS side has been a "bad actor". All the "bad acting" seems to be coming from only one side. Every pot shot, accusation of intent, names and labels have without fail have come from one side of the discussion. ------------------------ I've repeatedly stated that the ESG agenda is influencing corporate decision making. That's it. Even Jaybuck43, who is a lawyer that specializes in entertainment and media hasn't denied it. Mr. Sneeze hasn't denied it. namisgr hasn't denied it. Buzzetta hasn't denied it. sfcityduck hasn't denied it. NOBODY HAS DENIED IT. You know what's really strange? This ESG investment vehicle is "Fuelling Wall Street" (those are the words of Bloomberg, Business Insider and Reuters News), driving 800 of the world's largest corporations and 200 world leaders to meet and discuss it regularly, so it is literally influencing every human on earth, and it's "been around for 20 years" as Jaybuck stated. The world is surrounded by ESG ideology like oxygen, AND YET MOST HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS. Even you were unaware, IIRC, right? Weird that it's such a quiet topic. ------------------------------------------------ The only point I've tried to discuss is how much the ESG agenda has influenced corporate decision making and by extension, the art form of making movies and film. That's it. I believe it's influenced everyone to a far greater degree than they realize, and more than some care to admit. Others believe it hasn't. This isn't conspiracy. It's just discussion about economics and influence of those economics on the art form. So if anyone wants to discuss my points, this is it in a nutshell.

You also spoke about what I believe when you have no idea.

Thank you for adding to the convo from your experience inside the industry. It is very much appreciated by many of us.

You're trying to identify intent by throwing darts so that you can dismiss it. It's a good thing you didn't call it a conspiracy theory. You can insert any institution you want that is well known for abuse and misconduct ABOVE the average and my response would have been the same. It's one of the reasons I left the religion I was raised in. It was full of abuse, assault and brainwashing. I LIVED IN IT. And it's the reason I'd never use them as a role model again. It's the same with Hollywood. The entire industry was built on, through, for and because of hedonism. Talk about polishing a turd. EDITED TO ADD: I don't think everyone in Hollywood is corrupt much like I don't think everyone in religion is corrupt. Two of my BEST friends live in Hollywood and I'd take a bullet for them, but I do think the SYSTEM is corrupt and rife with abuse.

How do you know what I believe or know? You're saying Hollywood, the sex capital of the world, the most openly indulgent place on earth, one of the wealthiest places on earth, one of the most shallow places on earth, one of the most beautiful places on earth, a place that is literally America's hedonistic playground can be compared to working at Shell Oil? You're comparing sexual abuse in Hollywood to Wal-Mart. Does that make sense to anyone? Yeah, let's continue to use Hollywood as a vehicle to empower our children. This is cultural cannibalism at it's finest.

Are you aware that @jaybuck43 is an expert in the field we're discussing? And that he produced that graph originally as a rebuttal to me? And that I asked Jaybuck for MORE DATA to better understand the graph? And that NOBODY so far has produced more data but lots of replies? I think your post is better directed to the person who introduced the graph in the first place and not to me, right? You might be the only person in this entire thread that is asking this question and the question doesn't make sense in the context of the discussion. Follow me... We WERE DISCUSSING why Marvels has done poorly. Many said it was "poor writing", "fatigue", "terrible villains" and whatever else. I stood on the position that it was the ESG movement influencing corporate decisions from the outside and pressuring movie houses to add more inclusive content into films in the same way ALL CORPORATIONS are being influenced to hire more diverse staff. I mean, the evidence is overwhelming. You quite LITERALLY HAVE LAWS stating this (affirmative action) and those laws have extended into corporate ideologies forming their art and movies. I simply stated that by putting MORE women into tights, which is Marvel / Disney has done, HAS MISSED THE MARK and women aren't as interested as Disney thought they were. The question YOU are asking above PROVES my point. It's not whether they are in the lead role or not, it's whether that lead role is well written TO APPEAL TO WOMEN. ------------------------------------------ Women OUT of tights do far better in appealing to women than women in tights. That's the entire premise of my point. Again, I will point to Evey in V for Vendetta, which are 2 of my 3 daughter's favorite films. Bridges of Madison County (one of my favorite films) where Meryl Streep is the obvious hero in the movie, QUITE LITERALLY OVERSHADOWING ONE OF THE GREATEST ROLE MODELS IN THE HISTORY OF MOVIES - Clint Eastwood. Wonder Woman I'd have to watch again ( really dislike DC movies so I have a hard time with most of them) but I think they did a reasonable job of placing her into a role in a way that was believable and relatable to SOME women in B v S - she played the part of the powerful CEO / Superhero - almost like a counterpoint to Tony Stark in the MCU. Putting women into poorly written lead roles just to attempt to appeal to women is as patronizing and demeaning as hiring someone for a job just because they're a women when they're not the best fit for the job. It's offensive and borders on sadistic. And pointing that out is difficult because it's not popular, but if you polled all women, I'm betting most would agree.

I read everything, as do people who don't post here. And I don't think you can have a deep conversation in a "sentence or two" and move on, which really is the problem if most people think they can. And that really is a root problem with social media. People have been programmed to think a soundbite is a sufficient response. It's a recipe for disagreement and nothing else, which is why I choose to expand my responses.

I'm going to say something that is very much in need of saying and it has been on my mind for a while. We KNOW that Hollywood is a cesspool for sexual misconduct. We KNOW that Disney has had it's share of allegations as have the rest of the industry. Weinstein was literally the tip of many icebergs. All the stories you've heard make up a small percentage. The stories you HAVE heard, like Cory Feldman's and those of many others have been hushed over the years were utterly BURIED to keep Hollywood looking good. I am really surprised at the absolute wall of support for an industry that has been literally built through exploitation as though they are the perfect teachers for the public now. It's quite a dichotomy to watch happen in real time.

That sounds just about right for Hollywood and the big machine. Wow.

This opening statement is very misleading. Not ONE SINGLE person has stated women aren't into comics. My 22 year old daughter is the world's largest Bone / Jeff Smith fan as an example. This discussion is about WHAT interests women about comics and what interests women in a MALE DOMINATED medium, and my position is that men and women in tights is far more interesting to men than it is to women. Just attend an NFL Football game as evidence.

More logical questions. Is this forum male dominated? Are Comic cons male dominated? Is the comics hobby in general male dominated? Are action movies, which are the core of the MCU male dominated? Are non-action movies female dominated? Are sports and sports viewers male dominated? All reasonable questions that apply directly to the MCU discussion.

I asked this question of Jaybuck who himself stated he "has all the info" on media and movies, and when he posted a graph showing that men lead women in seeing the MCU, the graph obviously showed men dominated attendance of MCU movies but that women trailed far behind, but not too far behind. From the graph below, it's obvious that men lead women by 20-25% across the board. ---------------------------------------------------- My next logical question was, OK how many men took women vs women taking men? A similar question would be how many women would go without men and visa versa? These are SUCH LOGICAL QUESTIONS to me that get to the heart of the matter, and yet nobody will answer or discuss them from the opposing side. And yet, we've seen almost every poster in this thread ON THIS MALE DOMINATED FORUM who has commented on demographics from personal anecdotes openly state that when they went to the movies they took their spouses or daughters with them. When I went to the movies, I usually had my wife or girlfriend with me, and at least 1 or 2 daughters would regularly join (but sometimes I'd literally take 5 women and 3 men). More importantly, I would take the women to movies they'd NEVER see otherwise. It's a part of my cultural training, meaning I wanted to expose my women to as many different aspects of culture as I could - I didn't choose male or female biased storylines, I chose storylines THAT WOULD MAKE THEM THINK and expand their world. It's why I introduced by daughter to V for Vendetta as a Christmas present and it became her favorite movie. She'd NEVER had seen that movie otherwise, because it looked like a male superhero movie from the outside. It was far from that. ------------------------------------------------------ Isn't this asking questions about the data how peer review works? Wasn't this the foundation of ALL THE PANDEMIC ARGUMENTS from the very same people who now oppose dissecting the data here? So to answer your many questions, let's focus on ONE POINT of hard data, through polite discussion without political baiting. Let's start by dissecting THIS GRAPH. In it, we will likely ALL find our answers. As for your questions about the science surrounding the discussion, we have a NEUROSCIENTIST participating in these very discussions but rather than add something constructive, he's stood on the sidelines and cast stones at messengers he disagrees with. Although, he did have this to say about me when I expounded on the biological and psychological differences between men and women in the Barbie thread. I'll take that to mean that I wasn't wrong about what I wrote in regards to the science between men and women in that thread.

The downfall of every single person, no matter how good they are at what they do.

There is a "rock fantasy camp" that charges something like $2500 (I think that's the number I was told) for a kid (or adult) to take some lessons and then play on stage with their favorite rock star on a famous stage. https://www.rockcamp.com/fantasy-camp-metalmania3.php Last week it was Zakk Wylde, Mike Portnoy and Marty Friedman and you get to perform on stage at The Whisky in Los Angeles, a legendary venue. The camp is ALWAYS sold out and parents pay their kids to fly from across the globe to do it. Believe me, there is a market for this. There is more money in the world than there are things to spend it on.

Thank you. This is what I was looking for.

It's the same way in every large industry (sports, entertainment, etc). There are a lot of moving pieces and lots of heads to lob off when things go south. When I said I loosely followed the Disney story, I knew Iger was hired back, I knew they were struggling, I knew that I didn't really have an interest in many of the movies and from an economic and political perspective, I was following what was going on with social movements in relation to them but I didn't delve into the specifics of Chapik's firing. Obviously there are at least two sides to the story, so what was the gist surrounding Chapick's firing from both his perspective and from Disney's? Maybe @Bosco685 has some insight?

I actually would have really enjoyed learning about the inner workings of movie houses more from people like @EastEnd1 It's a shame that the discussion got derailed. I think a LOT of people would enjoy that discussion, no matter what they thought about this movie.

Of course. I never thought Iger made a snap decision based on the opinions in this thread either. I'm well aware that multi billion industries don't make decisions overnight and have been loosely following the Disney story for most of this year and I agree that Eternals and other franchises helped forced Disney to admit they were on the wrong track. But the announcements to changes at Disney's movie division @alexgross.com posted a few days ago, which are basically the first public admissions that they screwed up, that I was aware of just happened to coincide at the same time this movie hit theaters, and so it's natural for the discussion to take place in this thread.

The MCU has enough A list options now to fill theaters for the next few decades. As has been said in many other threads, they just need to use their IP in a strong way and not thin themselves out. A few less movies at a time and go back to strong character development and things will rebound the way X-men rebounded under Neal Adams and Daredevil rebounded under Miller.