@therealsilvermane

On 4/19/2023 at 6:32 AM, drotto said:

Shang Chi and Eternals were independent, but everything else was tied in somehow.  Now you are going to have the Marvels which requires you have watched two streaming shows.  One of which was the lowest viewed MCU show.  How is this a good stratagy?

Because Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness, which tied in the most with a Disney+ series, WandaVision, has been the most successful Phase Four film, financially speaking, outside of No Way Home. Successfully bringing together heroes from different movies/shows is what Marvel does and does well. It's their thing. Outside of certain circles of fandom, MCU fans are really excited to see Captain Marvel team up with Ms Marvel and Monica Rambeau. Captain America New World Order is now rumored to be a mini Avengers film like Civil War. Polling says fans like that kind of stuff. And you actually don't need to do that much homework. Probably to get The Marvels, you just need to have seen the end credits of Ms Marvel which is probably going to be in The Marvels film anyway since that scene was in the trailer.

On 4/18/2023 at 5:45 PM, media_junkie said:

Wow, maybe I have just aged out of comic book movies.  I found that whole scence in the spacesuits just "cringe" and not funny at all.  Additionally I've heard that someone dies in this, but like who cares, just pull them from another multiverse like they did with Gamora.  Totally no stakes.

There are stakes. With Gamora, story-wise, it probably changes the entire chemistry of the Guardians (at least it seems that way in the trailer). Because that Gamora we knew and who shared adventures and feelins' with this "family" is gone forever. If done right, it makes for interesting story trajectories. The same goes with Loki. It was interesting (to me anyway) to see a variant Loki who discovered what his future had in store for him and who changed the course of his life based on that knowledge.

Also, we can't just pluck another Tony Stark or Natasha from 838-universe to replace ours. Wanda tried that in Multiverse of Madness with disastrous results. Stark, Natasha, and T'Challa are permanently dead and aren't coming back.

On 4/18/2023 at 8:01 PM, Gatsby77 said:

One of the rumors on Twitter this morning was that Disney is trying to figure out how to hold off on announcing a replacement for Majors until after Loki 2, which reportedly finished filming six months ago.

But umm...yeah - when your agency and PR firm opt to drop you - it's not good.

They're likely privy to knowledge that isn't yet known to the general public.

 

It makes sense for a talent management and PR firm to drop Majors because public opinion can directly affect their bottom line. Even though the guy is still innocent until proven guilty, some high priced talent could want to opt away from representation by the firm because of their affiliation to Majors who they may think is guilty. It's probably in the best interest of the firm to basically sacrifice Majors in order to not alienate their other clients.

Disney on the other hand isn't as affected by such public opinion and can afford to not overreact and sit it out to see how the legal system shakes out, especially, as you said, because Loki 2 is on the horizon.

On 4/18/2023 at 5:38 PM, Bosco685 said:

I forgot the rule the bigger the picture, the more credible the story. 

Posts from an iPhone apparently don't show you the relative size of a photo in a post, yeah that's kinda big, fixed it.

Anyway, the actual difference between the above story about Majors and his Management Company parting ways, versus the leak about Disney officially discussing Majors' replacement versus the anti-leak about Disney officially not yet discussing Majors' replacement is that the first story has been substantiated as reliable news and has been reported by reliable ENTERTAINMENT tabloid news outlets like Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and Fox News. The Disney officially discussing Majors' replacement story comes from unreliable rumorist Jeff Sneider, which has in turn been reported by all the 4th tier click bait internet nerd news outlets you can name off the top of your head. The third "headline" I posted is just some meme from social media I found which is just as reliable or unreliable as anything Sneider "reports".

It's common sense that the folks at Marvel would be worried about the Majors issue and its implications for the future, but I say Sneider's "leak" about Disney and Marvel officially looking at possible replacements for Kang is BS.

Another Jeff Sneider “leak” soon to be debunked?

So far, Majors’ lawyer has only produced texts from the girlfriend saying the altercation was her fault and she shouldn’t have tried to grab his phone. Besides her minor injuries, that’s all the public has. And a person known to you who is trying to get your phone is no excuse to use harmful force on that person. I feel that may have been what happened, that Majors went a little overboard in trying to keep his emotionally upset girlfriend away from him and his phone. And if that’s the case, the guilt lies with him.

The further this matter festers and time ticks away closer to production dates, Studios like Disney might feel they have to make a decision on the actor. If Majors gets cancelled, what a waste. What a talent. Besides Loki, I think he was rumored to be set for the Shang-Chi sequel and of course Kang Dynasty, where like Thanos in Infinity War, Kang was probably going to end up being the protagonist. 

On 4/18/2023 at 9:25 AM, drotto said:

Think they also should start viewing these as stand alone movies again.  Right now every film feels like the bridge to the next film and not it's own thing. That is hurting these movies.  If a fan misses a film, or does not like a film, or is not interested in one, it give them a jumping off point.  Once the habit is broken it is easier not to come back.  

 

This also ties into the mistake of making the D+ shows required viewing.  Just not enough people are watching these, again providing a jumping off point.  So now going back to watch for a film, feels like homework. The Marvels is really going to put this to the test with 2 of the 3 main characters getting their start in streaming.

I’d say required viewing of past movies was more a thing of the first Avengers movie, and most of Phases 2 & 3. The only Phase Four films that had required viewing of other heroes’ stories to understand the main story was Black Widow and Doctor Strange Multiverse of Madness. Shang-Chi and Eternals were stand alone films that had little to do with the rest of the MCU. No Way Home and  Wakanda Forever were direct sequels. Thor Love and Thunder did pick up from Endgame, but once Thor left the Guardians, the rest of the movie was a direct sequel to Ragnarok. For QuAntuMania, to get Kang’s story, you didn’t need to have seen Loki at all. As far as the Disney+ series, The first four series WandaVision FWS Loki and Hawkeye picked up from the events of Endgame, but the last three series Moon Knight, Ms Marvel and She-Hulk had little to do with what happened before. In fact, one of the criticisms thrown at Phase Four was an apparent lack of cohesion among the stories or any kind of lead-up to a Phase Four Avengers movie. Maybe there needs to be more tying in of stories as the two most successful Phase Four films, No Way Home and MoM, were major team-up stories. 

On 4/17/2023 at 2:51 PM, drotto said:

Is something finally starting to sink in?

More BS rumors. Russo Bros had never made a major feature before Winter Soldier. Quantumania director Peyton Reed has been making movies for decades. Marvel Studios has had more success with less experienced filmmakers. Let me guess, did these rumors come from that leaker extraordinaire Jeff Schneider again? 

On 4/14/2023 at 10:56 PM, paperheart said:

And 2024 winner of multiple Razzies

Or Brie up for consideration for her second Oscar nom. Yeah I know probably not, but also you never know because Brie is a winner

On 4/14/2023 at 10:30 PM, Cat said:

She's only dominating it for how badly the trailer went across. That doesn't make for 'The Year Of Captain Marvel™'. 

April 10, Marvel releases The Marvels trailer online six months ahead of release. 

May 4, Marvel makes Captain Marvel the leader of the Avengers in the comics.

June 21, Secret Invasion which is in some ways an espionage style spin-off of Captain Marvel comes to Disney+ and will air for six weeks. 

By August, The Marvels marketing campaign should be in full swing with trailers on TV and tie-in merchandise everywhere.  And oh yeah, toxic social media trolls giving Cap even more publicity with their persistent online attacks that do nothing but rile up the choir, and yes, give the movie free publicity.

November 10, Veterans Day, The Marvels opens globally and will be the final MCU project of the year barring a  Christmas special.

2023 will be the year of Captain Marvel.

Comic book trailer for the new Avengers #1 next month that will feature Carol Danvers as the Avengers leader for the first time since becoming Captain Marvel, higher further faster proof that Marvel intends to make 2023 the year of Captain Marvel. I mean already Captain Marvel is dominating the pop culture news cycle.

On 4/14/2023 at 9:07 PM, Artboy99 said:

I didn't like The Marvel's teaser trailer  because what they chose to show me did not appeal to me. The young Ms. Marvel character "waaahaaahhaaaaa...oh hi Nick Fury", then when they go to her home, then the interaction with the Cat/Flerkin which was more "waaahaaahhaaaaa". I just thought it was very bad.

Then I see this fan made trailer, and it completely changes how I could feel about the film. Watch this, it is very well done.

...unfortunately it isn't real.

What it tells me is that I am not interested in the goofball silly Marvel movies that they make, therefore I am not the target audience, therefore I have no need to go see the film. I just do not enjoy that style of movie when I know they have the potential capability of creating a film akin to the Winter Soldier (which is still my favorite Marvel movie). That is the kind of film I want and if the characters they are choosing to use do not fit a movie like that then I would rather they make something else with characters that fit a quality production like that.

It has nothing to do with whether the film is female led. One of my favorite movies ever is Aliens with Sigourney Weaver. That film still captivates me even today 37 years later I absolutely love it. I just want quality with a more serious tone with the failing humor dialed down several notches.

You do know that when the actual major marketing campaign for Captain Marvel kicks in, Marvel Studios will release a few different trailers with different tones, right? 
That’s what Marvel does for almost every MCU movie. More than likely in a few months we should see a The Marvels trailer with a more dramatic tone.  That’s how it normally works anyway.

On 4/14/2023 at 6:36 PM, Bosco685 said:

I'm sorry. I was drinking water when I read that.

Now getting napkins to wipe down my monitor. I laughed too hard.

Of course you did, being that you’re like 70% responsible for the tock-sick-city here in this thread the past 24 hours.

Ding dong! The M-SHE-U thread is dead! About time.

How about getting back to positivity? Here’s what seems to be a positive reaction with actual objective thoughtful comments.

On 4/14/2023 at 12:50 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

On 4/14/2023 at 10:38 AM, drotto said:

Traditionally satire relies on humor, Watchman does not fit the definition. 

But Watchmen does fit Alan Moore’s own use of the term as in “Satire in the old sense, satire in the sense of doing a grotesque and unflattering portrait of somebody that is nevertheless true, that even they can’t disagree with it.”

Watchmen is a grotesque and unflattering portrait of superheroes and the comic book storytelling format.

On 4/14/2023 at 9:52 AM, Bosco685 said:

'Brought To Light' is a separate work from 'Watchmen'.

But nice try in shoehorning in Alan Moore as your "I'm right" attempt.

From the daily crossword:

On 4/14/2023 at 9:52 AM, Bosco685 said:

'Brought To Light' is a separate work from 'Watchmen'.

But nice try in shoehorning in Alan Moore as your "I'm right" attempt.

So what other satires of his is Mr Moore referring to?

On 4/12/2023 at 4:50 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

On 4/13/2023 at 4:53 AM, Bosco685 said:

If you think the Watchmen comic book characters were a parody or satire of traditional DC characters, then I wonder if you ever understood Alan Moore's story to begin with. And I know where you referenced 'satire' from - Wikipedia. As I read that there a while back, and was surprised it contained that description.

Like was noted earlier, it was using interpretations of similar characters to deconstruct the common traits and lore of comic book stories by forcing the leads into real-world scenarios. Including how their secret identities and powers would disrupt and destroy their attempts to have relationships like 'normals'.

If you get the chance, go to your local library and check out a copy of the paperback. You may like it once you read the story. Wiki does it a disservice. 

From an interview with Alan Moore about his new graphic novel “Brought To Light”:

I think that Brought to Light was the most successful satire that I’ve ever done. Satire in the old sense, satire in the sense of doing a grotesque and unflattering portrait of somebody that is nevertheless true, that even they can’t disagree with it.