VintageComics

This is truly a great Litmus test. If I'm passively watching a movie and it gets interesting, I stop what I'm doing. Literally. I can be processing books and if an old MCU movie comes on, I stop what I'm doing. But when something I'm not interested in comes on, I don't what I'm doing. Great observation that I didn't even realize was happening, which leads me to my next question: Why are people enjoying some of these movies and who is loving them?

The entire planet has become an eerie Stepford Wives scene and what's scary is most think it's normal. Thank God my kids don't.

Not yet. I tend to watch stuff that I'm not too interested in passively while working or doing something else so I will likely watch it at some point. Why?

Edited in a link above.

Have you not heard about ESG in general or just not in the Disney decision making process? https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/app/uploads/2023/03/2022-CSR-Report.pdf It HAS to be there, because that is the fundamental principle 800 of the world's largest corporations are united on, although it is backfiring. I read a great article last year how Wall Street was pushing FOR ESG investing with Larry Fink from Blackrock championing it (they manage $10 Trillion in assets and basically own most of the world) but that Wall Street has started pushing back because the investing strategy has been backfiring. Again, Bud Light and Disney as evidence. ------------------------------------------- Not sure how high up you were or your friends still are but it's obvious that it's real and I'm not making it up. https://www.sustainalytics.com/esg-rating/the-walt-disney-co/1008069810 https://www.marketbeat.com/stocks/NYSE/DIS/sustainability/

Corrections are bad if you don't understand history, are impatient or are spread too thin. Corrections are great for everyone over all, much like old branches and leaves dying to make way for new growth. How much in Crypto profits were absorbed by the general public in 2021 when Bitcoin holders cashed in? $2 Trillion? How many trillions were given away by Central Banks during the same period? And those trillions have grown by smart people who reinvested. There is more money in the world than there is to buy things. That's why there's inflation. The wealthy are still buying assets at a pace that you can't imagine. I've spoken to them. I went to an incredible showcase of music artifacts, collectibles, instruments and such THIS SUMMER. There were kids there in their 20's and 30's buying up everything. And they were buying to HOLD and borrow against their assets. It was staggering.

Abso. Fricking. Lutely. Read my last reply to you before this one.

Ironically, it was around 2019 when things really changed in a big way, and I'm not making that up. There's a good Forbes article documenting the progress of the term ESG, which is the governance principle by which all large corporations invest. I am fairly certain that this is NOT against the rules, but if it is, I'm not doing it intentionally. I scanned the article for politics, searched key words etc and couldn't find any. It's strictly a discussion about economics and it shows that around 2017 things started ramping up and by 2019 the concept was growing exponentially around the globe. https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2023/11/11/sage-investment-advice-from-exhausted-real-estate-billionaire-jeff-greene/?sh=3444a3ec2d73 ---------------------------- This is the "outside corporate interference" I have been talking about. Companies are basically uniting with each other to invest under these principles in concert, and in doing so are giving each other "report card" scores to test how high they rank on the ESG scale. So if you, for example, cater to minorities more, whether in your staff or in your content, you get a higher ranking and the other companies will be more interested in dealing with you because of your higher score. That is literally what the Forbes article says. You can actually see a company's report card openly and know where they rank, and companies with low report cards struggle to do business with other companies, so everyone is trying to get the highest report card score possible by making everything as compliant to the scale as possible. Which is WHY YOU SEE ALL OF THESE THINGS THROWN INTO MOVIES THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE. They're not doing it for entertainment. That's what we've been trying to tell you. They're LITERALLY doing it to get a better "report card" score. Only it's backfiring. They had no idea how badly it was going to backfire. Just like it did for BUD LIGHT. If I've said anything wrong here, please correct me. I'm happy to be wrong.

Nope... I spent thirteen years as a corporate executive at one of The Mouse's chief competitors and sat in the exec and board meetings and I can assure you this is not how major multinationals operate. You either hit your numbers or your gone... that's how it operates. Which time period or year span, if I'm allowed to ask? Did we meet at San Deigo one year? I think I may have your card still. Edited because it was a Disney exec.

Yes. Let's again ignore the actual science of how and why men and women are different and instead, fabricate a new reality again. Goodness.

It absolutely is. Would you like me to prove it to you? They actually don't know who their target audience should be and this is why they crumbled. Just look at Bud Light as a test case. Bud still hasn't recovered and may never will. Disney seems to be next. This isn't anything more than a horrible business move, but HOW they made the horrible business move is next for discussion. Would you like to have that discussion because I'm well versed in it.

Pretty much every single person on the internet who thought there was another reason Marvels was flopping. But specifically in this thread, every single poster - namisgr, Cat, jsilverjanet, Buzzetta and every other person who as name calling, insulting, demeaning, or just plain WRONG about their methodology while trying to get people to stop talking. They couldn't accept they were wrong even though the science was NOT ON THEIR SIDE. I tried to point it out subtly at first in the Barbie thread and then here but they kept trying to shut the convo down. The question I want answered is why they kept insulting people when they were wrong? -------------------------------------------- What REALLY started to make me think was this post: Almost ALL the characters are women and I immediately thought, no woman wants to watch a movie about a female Super-team. How do I know? Because if you watch female sports, the audience is dwarfed by the numbers in male audiences. It's not "inequality". It's BIOLOGY. And you can't trick nature into doing something it doesn't want to do. EVER. Remember Jurassic Park?

The debate on why the Marvels movie is struggling at the box office.

Dude, we just solved a multi billion dollar problem for Disney when they couldn't figure it out. Light up a stogie. There's no torches. We just doused them permanently. Now let's see who admits they were wrong in the face of an immutable act. As @TupennyConan Conan once said, pay attention to what people say and do and remember it.

The Union will need to jump on this now, and police it from the get go. I don't see the studio's adhering, without testing the boundaries of the points negotiated. It's too easy for them to push any questions to their legal team, and actors will need to strike again as their only real power leverage. The studio will adhere to this the way the public adhered to downloading music 20 years ago.

Now, let's reverse the tables. What does that make Disney, when they are trying to force people who don't want to like something to like it. Because that is EXACTLY what they're doing. This is not the Disney of 1965. What does it make the people who are trying to force others to accept things they don't want? Honest question.

I just ended the debate with the help of @RedRaven. See how we can get to the heart of a matter if we're just allowed to continue respectful discourse?

Right. So they missed an ACTUAL OPPORTUNITY to cast a lead role with a different race and instead put him in a lesser role. I would actually have less objection to this. It would have been more logical, and yet the studios missed it.

Buzz, you have it backwards. You have the narrative, it's not real and it's being pushed from my perspective, and I GENUINELY don't have a preferred narrative except one that's grounding in reality.

I heard a commentator once state that comic book movies are basically structured as male power fantasies and as such primarily appeal to men. He then went on to say that a female hero in that sort of story would not attract a female audience as it is still a story designed to appeal to male ideas of fantasy. There was further digression into Rom-Com demographics and such. I will try to find the video. God, I'm so glad you're here. This is SUCH an important point that hasn't been discussed to my knowledge and it completely eviscerates any discussion over why superhero movies are failing. Men and women are biologically and psychologically WIRED DIFFERENTLY. THEY ARE OPPOSITES. Guys LOVE superheroes, action, conflict, fighting, aggression. We LITERALLY get OFF on it. The other day I saw a bunch of my friends on IG dressed in Middle Ages battle armor and fighting with swords and axes in a pit. For fun. It was their "Sunday-Funday" Did you guys know that guy's testosterone levels increase just being close to "guy" things? It's why guys are obsessed with sports, video games, verbal jousting, play fighting, and why we can literally argue or throw fists at each other and afterwards walk away and shake hands respectfully. When I shared the video with a lady friend of mine, who is VERY progressive, strong, independent and accomplished (she's the Founder of the charity event I'm working on) she rolled her eyes and couldn't believe it. She wanted nothing to do with it. And what Disney is doing, so that they can "appeal to women" is they are trying to force women into a genre that historically, biologically and psychologically THEY HAVE WANTED NOTHING TO DO WITH. And then they wonder why the movies are failing. This is literally a clown world we are living in, trying to force square pegs into round holes and convincing everyone they fit. Superhero movies don't appeal to women nearly as much as they appeal to men and they are trying to convince you they do while they are literally going bankrupt trying to do so. It's as though they have NO idea what the target audience is, and they know better than everyone so you'll sit and enjoy it. Women DON'T LOVE THE GENRE THE WAY MEN DO. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH INEQUALITY. THEY DON'T WANT IT. Why do you all think V for Vendetta was two of my 3 daughter's favorite movies? Because they could relate to Evey. They can't relate to Captain Marvel. Of course if you fill them with enough testosterone they might. That's the reality. But naturally? No. End. Mic drop. Disney can send me their check.

It DOES feed the worst side on issue and it drives people further apart. There is a wedge being driven between both sides and most don't recognize it. You know, I glanced over this initially and wasn't sure what you were getting at and then it struck me. Why didn't they put Idris Elba into Loki's role? Great question on multiple levels. For example, if the goal was to represent African Americans, then why not put him into a LEAD role rather than a supporting role in the movie? It's patronising but disguised as something else. And why wasn't Loki played by Idris? The answer is clear. They were brothers and it wouldn't have made sense. I don't think most people actually understand how logic works. Your logic is rock solid and it closes the discussion. The only way to reopen the discussion is to bend the rules of reality, something you can't do with logic. It's either true or false. It's uncompromising. I had a really great experience this summer. I got to meet one of the members of Redbone, who was actually telling us about the special endowments native Americans received to create their music. Ironically, this is a song from the Guardians movie! Then we got to sing the song with him. It as a pretty special night. Yep. Can I just say how FRICKING AMAZING IT IS TO SEE YOU POSTING AGAIN!!!!!!! I didn't think you were coming back! As someone stated on Facebook today, humans don't get tired of Superheroes. Literally EVERY GREAT STORY, arc, narrative, myth, religion, history book and childhood story is wrapped around a mythical or historical figure that is greater than everyone else. Jesus, Mohammed, Thor, Hulk, Your Parents, Satan, Moloch - WHOEVER. The "superhero fatigue" myth is a narrative constructed to discredit factual discussion. Further, the "some people want to write the narrative about how a type of content is being forced" is happening. EVEN DISNEY WILL ADMIT IT if the conversation is allowed here, WHICH IT IS NOT. So your entire premise is wrong.

What a Quantam leap in logic. Dude, all that post says is that you're mean spirited and don't have the self control to ignore what doesn't interest you. Sorry you feel that way.

You have a wealth of examples you choose from, your replies are non-combative, factual, very articulate and pretty much close ended. I wish I could write like that. I'd never said anything about the last bolded line (changing the race of Norse characters) but it's objectively strange and even ridiculous to have Norse characters played by non-Norse characters. To be fair, I didn't mind Edris Alba playing Heimdall very much, but him being very good looking helps people accept that role. The dude is a stud and because of that, back in 2011 most let it slide...but it always stood strange with me and I think with a lot of people. Imagine if Django in Django Unchained was played by Leonardo DeCaprio? This is a clear example of how viewers are expected to just accept things that are wholly unrealistic, objectively speaking and are contrary to the spirit of the truth. Not a big deal as an isolated incident, but it starts to take much larger form when viewed in the context of the entire conversation.

I'm not sure if this is just disingenuous or ignorance, but remember the word intent we talked about? Intent is everything and you can't remove it from a discussion to make the discussion abstract. The intent of the messaging has changed. The source material for the messaging used come be from the bottom up, so Disney appealed to it's base by putting out movies the base wanted to see. The source material for the messaging today is coming from top down, so Disney is putting out movies THEY THINK YOU SHOULD SEE. This is driven by corporate interests, not by consumer interests. The two are wholly different things. I assume you approve of the latter?

Why don't you just either add to the discussion, offer a proper rebuttal or leave it? All you've done is throw out mockery in the last few days. I had the same experience. I grew up programmed to think Germans were abrasive and not nice people through the same shows and in the same way. What I found, after spending my entire adult life working with German firms and German people, was that they were incredibly polite and gracious people. Which is why I continued to work for them. And I am certain that the main reason they are so gracious and polite is because they quite literally took accountability for what happened in World War 2 to heart, and walked forward with humility. The West can really use some accountability and humility these days but it's nowhere to be found.