MCU's THE ETERNALS (11/6/20) 8 8

[@therealsilvermane]

 

On 10/31/2021 at 6:01 PM, Oddball said:

It’s just a movie.

Regarding the Hollywood in Toto reviewer referenced above, it's not just a movie for these folks. It's an ideological cultural war whose foot soldiers on their side review bombed Captain Marvel at RT a few years ago. Regardless of the quality of Eternals story, it's the film's featured diversity they have a problem with.

Edited October 31, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[Bosco685]

On 10/31/2021 at 6:14 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

 

Regarding the Hollywood in Toto reviewer referenced above, it's not just a movie. It's an ideological cultural war whose foot soldiers review bombed Captain Marvel at RT a few years ago. Regardless of the quality of Eternals story, it's the film's featured diversity they have a problem with.

Oh Lord!

[Gatsby77]

On 10/31/2021 at 5:21 PM, Bosco685 said:

Let me see if we got your logic right.

So in your conspiracy theory the 30% stakeholder in Fandango told the 70% stakeholder what to do - including hiding the 2017 Justice League movie was going to be a bomb so to hold off on releasing its RT score?

30% told 70% what to do - something mathematically and even corporate governance-wise would never allow this to happen. Especially if regulators found out how publically traded companies (WB does roll under AT&T) were manipulating the market.

Do you understand how that wouldn't happen?

Why would you think a 30% shareholder couldn't occasionally dictate terms?

That happens *all* the time and is the main reason companies build strong minority stakes - it gives them board seats and the precise ability to do just that.

And this has been a known thing for 30 years - see the Gordon Gecko quote from Wall Street:

"Now, listen, Jerry - I'm looking for negative control. Okay? No more than 30, 35%. Just enough to block anybody else's merger plans and find out from the inside if the books are cooked."

More importantly, many reporters picked up on how rotten it smelled when Rotten Tomatoes refused to release the critics' score for Justice League until the 11th hour:

See The Washington Post: 

"The movie-review aggregator waited more than 24 hours to post a poor critics' score for the new Warner Bros. film "Justice League," breaking with tradition of posting right after a studio-imposed ban...

"Fueling the fire: WB parent Time Warner owns a 30 percent stake in Rotten Tomatoes...."

“I think we need more transparency and equality on Rotten Tomatoes,” said Guy Lodge, a critic who writes for Variety. “An aggregation site should practice absolute objectivity. You mix Time Warner into it,” he added, “and it becomes very confusing.”

"Warner Bros is a minority owner of Rotten Tomatoes' parent company. I respect a lot of people who work there but this is a BAD bad look," Katey Rich, a VanityFair.com editor, tweeted before the Facebook segment aired."

Other articles at the time discussing the suspicious timing and ownership conflict of interest:

Forbes

Vox

[▫️]

On 11/1/2021 at 1:14 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

 

Regarding the Hollywood in Toto reviewer referenced above, it's not just a movie for these folks. It's an ideological cultural war whose foot soldiers on their side review bombed Captain Marvel at RT a few years ago. Regardless of the quality of Eternals story, it's the film's featured diversity they have a problem with.

Yes, they must be racist. Go get ‘em tiger.

[@therealsilvermane]

On 10/31/2021 at 6:18 PM, Bosco685 said:

 

Basically, yes, if the MCU film upsets the "anti-woke" vision of the world they want to live in. Black Panther was a target. Captain Marvel and Brie Larson were targets and public enemy #1. Shang-Chi was a target. And all three put the haters to bed with either their billion dollar box office takes or a record breaking run in a pandemic. Eternals is next on the list and they think they smell blood in the water due to the movie's mixed reviews.

[▫️]

On 11/1/2021 at 1:31 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

Basically, yes, if the MCU film upsets the "anti-woke" vision of the world they want to live in. Black Panther was a target. Captain Marvel and Brie Larson were targets and public enemy #1. Shang-Chi was a target. And all three put the haters to bed with either their billion dollar box office takes or a record breaking run in a pandemic. Eternals is next on the list and they think they smell blood in the water due to the movie's mixed reviews.

So in your own words, the MCU won against the haters, as will Eternals. So unbunch your panties. 

[@therealsilvermane]

On 10/31/2021 at 6:29 PM, Oddball said:

Yes, they must be racist. Go get ‘em tiger.

You said it's just a movie regarding the Toto review. I'm saying the Toto review was concerned with things beyond just the story, but also with the movie's "wokeness." It's even in the review title (which is representative of the review body). I'm not saying the guy is racist, but "anti-woke", or anti-diversity in pop culture, for sure. 

 

[drotto]

On 10/31/2021 at 6:14 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

 

Regarding the Hollywood in Toto reviewer referenced above, it's not just a movie for these folks. It's an ideological cultural war whose foot soldiers on their side review bombed Captain Marvel at RT a few years ago. Regardless of the quality of Eternals story, it's the film's featured diversity they have a problem with.

So it is now impossible for someone to not like something just because  they do not like it? Everyone that does not like one of these movies is automatically racist?

[drotto]

On 10/31/2021 at 6:41 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

You said it's just a movie regarding the Toto review. I'm saying the Toto review was concerned with things beyond just the story, but also with the movie's "wokeness." It's even in the review title (which is representative of the review body). I'm not saying the guy is racist, but "anti-woke", or anti-diversity in pop culture, for sure. 

 

On the other side, you have reviewers praising films like this just because of the diversity.  Just as it is wrong to hate something because of diversity, it is also just as agenda driven to like something because these things are forefront, forget about if the movie is actually entertaining.  

[▫️]

On 11/1/2021 at 1:41 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

You said it's just a movie regarding the Toto review. I'm saying the Toto review was concerned with things beyond just the story, but also with the movie's "wokeness." It's even in the review title (which is representative of the review body). I'm not saying the guy is racist, but "anti-woke", or anti-diversity in pop culture, for sure. 

 

Woke is one of the dumbest buzzwords yet in my opinion. I think the majority of intelligent people don’t have any issue with diversity unless its diversity for diversity’s sake. 

Edited October 31, 2021 by Oddball

[Bosco685]

On 10/31/2021 at 6:31 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

Basically, yes, if the MCU film upsets the "anti-woke" vision of the world they want to live in. Black Panther was a target. Captain Marvel and Brie Larson were targets and public enemy #1. Shang-Chi was a target. And all three put the haters to bed with either their billion dollar box office takes or a record breaking run in a pandemic. Eternals is next on the list and they think they smell blood in the water due to the movie's mixed reviews.

You believe this? Black Panther was not an excessive target. Captain Marvel I'll admit was by a certain faction.

Meanwhile, assuming minority and female critics are attacking Eternals due to racism is not a healthy mindset. 

[Bosco685]

On 10/31/2021 at 6:22 PM, Gatsby77 said:

Why would you think a 30% shareholder couldn't occasionally dictate terms?

That happens *all* the time and is the main reason companies build strong minority stakes - it gives them board seats and the precise ability to do just that.

And this has been a known thing for 30 years - see the Gordon Gecko quote from Wall Street:

"Now, listen, Jerry - I'm looking for negative control. Okay? No more than 30, 35%. Just enough to block anybody else's merger plans and find out from the inside if the books are cooked."

More importantly, many reporters picked up on how rotten it smelled when Rotten Tomatoes refused to release the critics' score for Justice League until the 11th hour:

See The Washington Post: 

"The movie-review aggregator waited more than 24 hours to post a poor critics' score for the new Warner Bros. film "Justice League," breaking with tradition of posting right after a studio-imposed ban...

"Fueling the fire: WB parent Time Warner owns a 30 percent stake in Rotten Tomatoes...."

“I think we need more transparency and equality on Rotten Tomatoes,” said Guy Lodge, a critic who writes for Variety. “An aggregation site should practice absolute objectivity. You mix Time Warner into it,” he added, “and it becomes very confusing.”

"Warner Bros is a minority owner of Rotten Tomatoes' parent company. I respect a lot of people who work there but this is a BAD bad look," Katey Rich, a VanityFair.com editor, tweeted before the Facebook segment aired."

Other articles at the time discussing the suspicious timing and ownership conflict of interest:

Forbes

Vox

Because there is a reason why corporations fight for a majority share: it makes them the majority so therefore they dictate the terms.

And quoting Gordon Gecko when he is talking about corporate stakeholder shares where NOBODY has a mass majority so it takes someone with 30% to 35% to control it is not even in the same class as Fandango where there are only two controlling stakeholders. So the PR ploy to pitch that is similar fails instantly. But like Gordon Gecko stated...

The most valuable commodity I know of is information

I just served you real information. Apply appropriately.

[Larryw7]

On 10/31/2021 at 8:45 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

Everywhere I look, it's "RT score this. RT score that. W'sup with that?" For me, there's no way in Hades that Eternals, a movie directed by an Academy Award winning director, is going to be 20% worse than Black Widow, 27% worse than Ant-Man and the Wasp, and just plain worse than Thor Dark World or Incredible Hulk. This is how useless Rotten Tomatoes scores should be though society still holds it up as the final verdict on a movie. 

Michael Cimino won an Academy Award for The Deer Hunter in 1978(almost universally acclaimed. His next movie was Heaven's Gate, the biggest bomb in history that destroyed a studio and ruined the careers of nearly everyone involved. No matter how talented, a film maker needs material that is suitable to what they can bring to a project.

[Gatsby77]

On 10/31/2021 at 9:06 PM, Bosco685 said:

Because there is a reason why corporations fight for a majority share: it makes them the majority so therefore they dictate the terms.

And quoting Gordon Gecko when he is talking about corporate stakeholder shares where NOBODY has a mass majority so it takes someone with 30% to 35% to control it is not even in the same class as Fandango where there are only two controlling stakeholders. So the PR ploy to pitch that is similar fails instantly. But like Gordon Gecko stated...

The most valuable commodity I know of is information

I just served you real information. Apply appropriately.

I love how you focus on the Gordon Gecko quote (which is fictional) but ignore the fact that the minority interest conflict actually made the news in The Washington Post - to say nothing of the other reputable news publications (I didn't even link to the pieces in Variety or Wired).

I didn't make this up - I'm merely reminding you what many publications reported at the time: that Warner Bros., a 30% owner in Rotten Tomatoes, clearly masked and delayed the release of the critics score for Justice League because they knew it was horrible.

Also, perhaps you're just ignorant regarding business but you're dead wrong that "it makes them the majority so they dictate the terms."

Again, a primary reason companies from Berkshire Hathaway to KKR to BlackRock seek significant minority control isn't just money, but to influence the corporate policies directly via board seats and (increasingly) proxy battles.

A "significant minority stake" could be as little as 5% but still be used to directly influence policies. There's a whole raft of hedge funds and private equity funds that do exactly this.

[Bosco685]

On 11/1/2021 at 6:02 AM, Gatsby77 said:

I love how you focus on the Gordon Gecko quote (which is fictional) but ignore the fact that the minority interest conflict actually made the news in The Washington Post - to say nothing of the other reputable news publications (I didn't even link to the pieces in Variety or Wired).

I didn't make this up - I'm merely reminding you what many publications reported at the time: that Warner Bros., a 30% owner in Rotten Tomatoes, clearly masked and delayed the release of the critics score for Justice League because they knew it was horrible.

Also, perhaps you're just ignorant regarding business but you're dead wrong that "it makes them the majority so they dictate the terms."

Again, a primary reason companies from Berkshire Hathaway to KKR to BlackRock seek significant minority control isn't just money, but to influence the corporate policies directly via board seats and (increasingly) proxy battles.

A "significant minority stake" could be as little as 5% but still be used to directly influence policies. There's a whole raft of hedge funds and private equity funds that do exactly this.

I love how you quoted Gordon Gecko, but when he was quoted back to you then it is HE'S A FICTIONAL CHARACTER. 

Meanwhile, you are still misrepresenting the corporate stakeholder situation. If a company has 45M shares outstanding across 10 owners, then the few with the larger percentage get to speak louder than the majority that own less.

In this example, Investor A and B would be the dominant voice without having to own the bulk of 45M. Because they would own a significant minority share of the full 45M.

But in the case of Fandango, there are two (2) stakeholders, and one owns 70%. It isn't even close how much WB is outweighed in that situation.

Edited November 1, 2021 by Bosco685

[Gatsby77]

On 11/1/2021 at 7:15 AM, Bosco685 said:

I love how you quoted Gordon Gecko, but when he was quoted back to you then it is HE'S A FICTIONAL CHARACTER. 

Meanwhile, you are still misrepresenting the corporate stakeholder situation. If a company has 45M shares outstanding across 10 owners, then the few with the larger percentage get to speak louder than the majority that own less.

In this example, Investor A and B would be the dominant voice without having to own the bulk of 45M. Because they would own a significant minority share of the full 45M.

But in the case of Fandango, there are two (2) stakeholders, and one owns 70%. It isn't even close how much WB is outweighed in that situation.

That's not the point.

The point is you're arguing Warner Bros., the 30% shareholder - wouldn't have *any* voice in Rotten Tomatoes' incredibly suspicious - and extraordinarily rare, if not unique - decision to hold back the critics' score for Justice League until more than 24 hours after the review embargo lifted.

Of *course* the 70% shareholder has the final say.

But the 30% shareholder has a *ton* of power as well.

Again - the news was big enough to make The Washington Post as well as Wired Magazine - not the usual suspects for unfounded film conspiracy theories.

You're also acting like Fandango (which sells theater tickets) wouldn't also benefit from this decision.

 

 

[Bosco685]

On 11/1/2021 at 8:02 AM, Gatsby77 said:

That's not the point.

The point is you're arguing Warner Bros., the 30% shareholder - wouldn't have *any* voice in Rotten Tomatoes' incredibly suspicious - and extraordinarily rare, if not unique - decision to hold back the critics' score for Justice League until more than 24 hours after the review embargo lifted.

Of *course* the 70% shareholder has the final say.

But the 30% shareholder has a *ton* of power as well.

Again - the news was big enough to make The Washington Post as well as Wired Magazine - not the usual suspects for unfounded film conspiracy theories.

You're also acting like Fandango (which sells theater tickets) wouldn't also benefit from this decision.

 

 

You must work in PR. And maybe even cover Disney as much as you attempt to detract from anything hinted at as negative.

• Disney blocks The Los Angeles Times from attending movie critic reviews and gets called out by major reporting sites forcing it to reverse its decision!

THAT'S SUCH OLD NEWS

• Disney forces theater chains to play Star Wars: The Last Jedi over extended period and takes a deeper cut OR ELSE Disney would not allow them to play the film

I NEGOTIATED THEATER CONTRACTS AND THIS IS TOTALLY FINE

• Business stakeholders want to own the minority-majority as this means they don't have to own everything - just enough to own more than the majority that combined would own more

HEY I SAID I WAS AN ACCOUNTANT AT ONE POINT AND IT DIDN'T GO SO WELL

• As I noted Fandango makes an estimated 75% of its revenue from ticket sales (noted by me in this thread and the Rotten Tomatoes thread)

YOU'RE ALSO ACTING LIKE FANDANGO (WHICH SELLS THEATER TICKETS) WOULDN'T ALSO BENEFIT...

[@therealsilvermane]

On 10/31/2021 at 6:46 PM, drotto said:

On the other side, you have reviewers praising films like this just because of the diversity.  Just as it is wrong to hate something because of diversity, it is also just as agenda driven to like something because these things are forefront, forget about if the movie is actually entertaining.  

So then what does that mean "forefront"? It seems with many attacks on films like Eternals, or Black Panther, or Shang-Chi, the fact that it exists at all in a mainstream popular movie seems to be "forefront", as if it's not allowed to normally operate and be distributed in the same space as any other mainstream popular movie dominated with white faces. And if it does show up in the mainstream popular movie space of comic book movies, that it's being forced upon us like Affirmative Action Hollywood or something. 

I remember when Black Panther was about to come out, I had a conversation with a MCU fan (but not a comics fan) who kinda thought this way. He asked me, as someone knowledgeable about comics, what was the purpose of a Black Panther movie? He said there was no reason for it other than to force a black superhero on the world. I told him that Black Panther goes back as far as the 60's and that he's been an on and off Avenger since  that time which was news to him. Here, like I said above, the very existence of the Black Panther movie seemed to trigger the mindset that the movie's "blackness" is forefront and is being forced upon us like it shouldn't be there. And that's a sad state of affairs in this day and age, but I suppose the reality.

Edited November 1, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[@therealsilvermane]

On 11/1/2021 at 3:25 AM, Larryw7 said:

Michael Cimino won an Academy Award for The Deer Hunter in 1978(almost universally acclaimed. His next movie was Heaven's Gate, the biggest bomb in history that destroyed a studio and ruined the careers of nearly everyone involved. No matter how talented, a film maker needs material that is suitable to what they can bring to a project.

While Heaven's Gate continues to divide critics and academics to this day, the movie was a bomb because it went way way over budget and few people went to go see it to justify the overblown budget. The price of the movie compared to its box office return is what sank United Artists (and as a result gave more artistic control to the studios rather than the director) It's a very dark depressing movie, but that's the movie Cimino wanted to make.

I'm expecting a weird hybrid of Chloe Zhao and Marvel Comics when I see Eternals on IMAX this week. I'll let my own judgement decide whether I like it or not. I certainly don't think Eternals is going to bomb and sink Marvel Studios and end comic book movies as we know it like some naysayers are naysaying.

[@therealsilvermane]

John Campea, shameless Marvel Studios shill/ secret Disney employee/ alien plant from the planet C-53, says he really really liked Eternals. Loved it even. But was he still disappointed? He does say he was disappointed because he went into the movie expecting to see something that could vie for Best Picture at the Academy Awards this year and he doesn't think this movie is that at all.