MCU's FANTASTIC FOUR (TBD) 8 8

[Prince Namor]

On 12/4/2023 at 6:41 AM, VintageComics said:

Can you imagine a 15 year, 25 movie story arc, building up the Fantastic Four and the X-men meeting in a final showdown against some great villain team up like Thanos, only replaced by Doom?

Everyone would love it. Almost nobody would complain, just like almost nobody complained about the Avengers story arc that culminated in End Game. 

It's almost like the entire planet is brainwashed to want to ruin everything on purpose. So strange. 

Really, why can't they make more movies like Napoleon?

Columbia Pictures: Napoleon - $200 Million Budget -  ($20 Million Opening) - $45 Million Domestic - in 13 days LOSER

Or real manly, man movies like:

Lions Gate: Expendables - $100 Million Budget -  ($8 Million Opening) - $16 Million Domestic - in 10 weeks LOSER

Paramount Pictures: Mission Impossible - $290 Million Budget -  ($54 Million Opening) - $172 Million Domestic - in 20 weeks LOSER

Paramount Pictures: Transformers - $200 Million Budget -  ($61 Million Opening) - $157 Million Domestic - in 25 weeks LOSER

Paramount Pictures: Dungeons & Dragons - $150 Million Budget -  ($37 Million Opening) - $93 Million Domestic - in 35 weeks LOSER

Universal Pictures: Fast X - $340 Million Budget -  ($67 Million Opening) - $145 Million Domestic - in  28 weeks LOSER

or just stick to what worked the first time:

Warner Brothers: The Flash - $300 Million Budget -  ($55 Million Opening) - $108 Million Domestic - in 24 weeks LOSER

Warner Brothers: Shazam - $125 Million Budget -  ($30 Million Opening) - $57 Million Domestic - in 37 weeks LOSER

Warner Brothers: Meg 2 - $129 Million Budget -  ($30 Million Opening) - $82 Million Domestic - in 17 weeks LOSER

Warner Brothers: Blue Beetle - $120 Million Budget -  ($25 Million Opening) - $72 Million Domestic - in 15 weeks LOSER

How about some Historical Movies:

Paramount Pictures: Killers of the Flower Moon - $200 Million Budget -  ($23 Million Opening) - $66 Million Domestic - in 46 days LOSER

 

Hmmm... maybe not... guess Disney isn't the only one losing money...

 

But... but... but...  Don't ALL those movies aimed at non-Males just fail?

Warner Brothers: Barbie - Who was THAT aimed at? $636 Million ($145 Million Budget) WINNER!

Warner Brothers: Taylor Swift - Who was THAT aimed at? $178 Million ($20 Million Budget) WINNER!

 

Which one did Disney lose more money on?

Walt Disney: Indiana Jones - $294 Million Budget -  ($67 Million Opening) - $174 Million Domestic - in  22 weeks

Walt Disney: Little Mermaid - $300 Million Budget -  ($95 Million Opening) - $298 Million Domestic - in  22 weeks

Edited December 5, 2023 by Prince Namor

[Prince Namor]

Warner Brothers: The Flash - $300 Million Budget -  ($55 Million Opening) - $108 Million Domestic - in 24 WEEKS

The Flash... in 24 WEEKS and with an $80 Million MORE of a Budget than the Marvels...

The Marvels - $220 Million Budget - ($46 Million Opening) - $80 Million Domestic - in 25 DAYS

But all of the talk is on... the Marvels....

Who's manipulating that conversation?

[Prince Namor]

On 12/5/2023 at 8:32 PM, VintageComics said:

Disney has lost $1BIL and 300K subsrcribers a month for consecutive months. Do YOU think they've been in the business of making money?

As usual, he leaves out the whole story, to make it fit HIS narrative:

Subscribers saw a considerable decline. Disney+ subscriptions fell from 157.8 million worldwide to 146.1 million, a loss of 11.7 million — more than doubling last quarter’s record decline, and it included a decrease of 300,000 in the U.S. and Canada where subscribers fell to 46 million. It’s just the second time Disney+ has taken a hit in North America; last quarter was the first.

(That's for the THIRD QUARTER, NOT consecutive MONTHS. DUH. Which means it happened before Marvels even came out).

AND...

Disney Hotstar Responsible For Most Streaming Losses

The bulk of the subscription loss came in India, where Disney+ Hotstar dropped by 24%, going from 52.9 million to 40.4 million. This drop was expected. Disney lost the rights to a critical cricket league in India, Indian Premier League with Viacom18, a joint venture of Viacom and India’s Reliance Industries, picking up those rights for a hefty $2.6 billion.

Since losing IPL rights, Disney+ Hotstar has seen subscriptions plummet as cricket fans cancel, which is hurting its overall numbers—about a third of Disney+ total subscribers had been in India.

 

If you take Disney+ Hotstar out of the equation, international streaming subscriptions were actually up by 1 million.

Total Hulu and ESPN+ subscribers were about the same from quarter to quarter.

AND:

Streaming losses continued to narrow after a $400 million decrease in streaming losses last quarter. That helped Disney as a whole also narrow its losses, from $1.41 billion last year to $460 million this quarter.

 

 

AND Warner Brothers Discovery?

The company reported 95.1 million global direct-to-consumer subscribers, a 700,000 decrease from the previous quarter, and less than the analyst projection of 95.4 million subscribers, according to StreetAccount.

 

[Prince Namor]

Wait... if Iger is going to concentrate more on 'story' and less on message... how will he get away with that?

Won't ESG get mad and force him not too?

Or was Roy's whole story about ESG FORCING them (Roy's exact quote: 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)

and...

"I stand by the points that I've made that big corporate involvement through various avenues is adulterating the art form."

 

 So what happened Roy? How're they getting away with it? Better check Ethan van Sciver's blog to see what you should respond with, because it looks like... you've been proven WRONG.

[jsilverjanet]

On 12/5/2023 at 7:32 AM, VintageComics said:

No. They've been in the business of virtue signalling and selling messages and that era has just ended, just as I called it in the Marvels thread. 

Go read my post in the Marvel / DC 1978 movies discussion thread. The fact that Iger is agreeing with me is pretty flattering. 

Disney has lost $1BIL and 300K subsrcribers a month for consecutive months. Do YOU think they've been in the business of making money?

 

please dont try and change my points to fit your narrative and conspiracy theories

I don't want to be associated with the things you are writing about

[VintageComics]

On 12/5/2023 at 11:00 AM, jsilverjanet said:

please dont try and change my points to fit your narrative and conspiracy theories

I don't want to be associated with the things you are writing about

Dude, I'm just mirroring what Iger and Disney have openly stated. It's not "my narrative" anymore than it is yours. 

You can't talk to me and about me and then tell me not to reply. 

[Chip Cataldo]

Please don't get this thread locked, guys.

[jsilverjanet]

On 12/5/2023 at 10:05 AM, VintageComics said:

Dude, I'm just mirroring what Iger and Disney have openly stated. It's not "my narrative" anymore than it is yours. 

You can't talk to me and about me and then tell me not to reply. 

please put me on ignore

[VintageComics]

On 12/5/2023 at 11:06 AM, Chip Cataldo said:

Please don't get this thread locked, guys.

I agree. I've made my point and am done responding to antagonistic people. This is ridiculous. 

[kimik]

On 12/5/2023 at 7:42 AM, Prince Namor said:

Disney Hotstar Responsible For Most Streaming Losses

 

The bulk of the subscription loss came in India, where Disney+ Hotstar dropped by 24%, going from 52.9 million to 40.4 million. This drop was expected. Disney lost the rights to a critical cricket league in India, Indian Premier League with Viacom18, a joint venture of Viacom and India’s Reliance Industries, picking up those rights for a hefty $2.6 billion.

Since losing IPL rights, Disney+ Hotstar has seen subscriptions plummet as cricket fans cancel, which is hurting its overall numbers—about a third of Disney+ total subscribers had been in India.

 

I can see that. The IPL is an awesome spectacle to watch. The top cricket players from around the globe getting paid, cheerleaders, blaring music, Bollywood stars at every game supporting their teams, it is great entertainment.

[alexgross.com]

On 12/5/2023 at 8:09 AM, VintageComics said:

I agree. I've made my point and am done responding to antagonistic people. This is ridiculous. 

roy, you have a lot of valuable insight to offer in the world of comics and comics related stuff. i've gained valuable knowledge from many, many of your posts over the years i've been here and researching older ones too. i have a great deal of respect for you. 

you like to ask questions, and start discussions and debates. i appreciate the curiosity of your mind and your interest in engaging others. these debates can also devolve into arguments, especially here on the boards. one thing i notice is that you insist on replying to everyone, all the time. we all like to have the last word, but it often just means a conversation devolves into bickering. and often, that results in yet another locked thread. i am not blaming you, but i would recommend letting more stuff go. block who you cannot deal with, and let others have the last word on stuff even if you disagree. it will make your life easier, save you alot of time, and hopefully save some threads here that people would prefer stay open. 

 

[VintageComics]

On 12/5/2023 at 2:39 PM, alexgross.com said:

roy, you have a lot of valuable insight to offer in the world of comics and comics related stuff. i've gained valuable knowledge from many, many of your posts over the years i've been here and researching older ones too. i have a great deal of respect for you. 

you like to ask questions, and start discussions and debates. i appreciate the curiosity of your mind and your interest in engaging others. these debates can also devolve into arguments, especially here on the boards. one thing i notice is that you insist on replying to everyone, all the time. we all like to have the last word, but it often just means a conversation devolves into bickering. and often, that results in yet another locked thread. i am not blaming you, but i would recommend letting more stuff go. block who you cannot deal with, and let others have the last word on stuff even if you disagree. it will make your life easier, save you alot of time, and hopefully save some threads here that people would prefer stay open. 

 

Man, I appreciate those kind words so much. They mean a lot to me. 

I agree with you 100% and if I can add, I think a lot of people see the old Roy and not the new Roy. If you've followed my posts since I've been back, I've argued a lot less with unreasonable (and ignorant) people.

In fact, if you pay attention, what you are generally seeing these days is people arguing with me while I don't answer back most of the time, like at the top of this page where someone is calling me out with multiple posts and I didn't give them any air. 

Now, there are a few times that I do reply back, and it's generally when someone makes a personal attack about me that maligns me in a way that is very unfavorable and I simply want to set the record straight OR, if I feel that we're on the path to some closure then I'll try to wind it down that way. 

A few examples would be my reply to jsilverjanet above. We ended amicably and came to a solution. As long as he doesn't start attacking me I think we have an understanding. Or yesterday when Lightning and I ended amicably after a back and forth. 

Sometimes everyone needs a little closure. 

This place used to be FULL of back and forth banter, and it was the lifeblood of the place. I don't know if people have been pistol whipped and programmed by social media to not be themselves or people have forgotten post pandemic how to have fun, but the internet has become a dull, dry place - not just this place but all social media.

I'm not cut from that cloth. I love jousting and joking and conversing. 

I do have a long history of people attacking me, and I have genuinely changed as a person. I don't feel the need to reply anymore to everyone and most importantly to me, I have an agreement with Mike that I won't bite back when people bite me and that he'll take care of it. I trust Mike to do that. 

Anyway, it takes some courage to type out what you did, and I genuinely appreciate it. 

It's discussions like this that actually make this place better. 

 

[mattn792]

[jimjum12]

On 2/11/2020 at 7:49 AM, fantastic_four said:

If Krasinski at 6' 3" is too tall to play the 6' 1" Reed, then Hugh Jackman's casting must have blown out your eardrums.  

6'3" is only 5'11" in 1961 inches. 

GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[VintageComics]

On 12/6/2023 at 5:56 AM, jimjum12 said:

On 2/11/2020 at 7:49 AM, fantastic_four said:

If Krasinski at 6' 3" is too tall to play the 6' 1" Reed, then Hugh Jackman's casting must have blown out your eardrums.  

6'3" is only 5'11" in 1961 inches. 

Meh. 

It's all an illusion in Hollywood. 

MOST actors are MUCH shorter than you think they are in real life because shorter people cast well in a square screen. 

Some actors are much taller but they need to be made to look shorter for film to match the rest of the cast. 

How about Gimli and the dwarves in Lord of the Rings (or even the hobbits)? They were all full grown men. 

Tom Cruise? short. 

It's all camera tricks and real life height is totally irrelevant for Hollywood movie magic. 

[jimjum12]

On 12/6/2023 at 6:51 PM, VintageComics said:

Meh. 

It's all an illusion in Hollywood. 

MOST actors are MUCH shorter than you think they are in real life because shorter people cast well in a square screen. 

Some actors are much taller but they need to be made to look shorter for film to match the rest of the cast. 

How about Gimli and the dwarves in Lord of the Rings (or even the hobbits)? They were all full grown men. 

Tom Cruise? short. 

It's all camera tricks and real life height is totally irrelevant for Hollywood movie magic. 

I met Ron Perlman and had expected him to be of epic proportion, but he was only a little taller than me, and I'm short. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[fantastic_four]

On 12/7/2023 at 12:44 AM, jimjum12 said:

I met Ron Perlman and had expected him to be of epic proportion, but he was only a little taller than me, and I'm short.

There's a dude who specializes in figuring out celebrity heights both currently and at their peak.  He thinks Perlman is a bit under 5' 11" now, but used to be around 6' 0" when he was younger.

https://www.celebheights.com/s/Ron-Perlman-67.html

The guy in the pic on the page is the guy who runs the site; he's Irish and is 5' 8" for comparison against Perlman.  He makes an effort to get pics with celebrities when he can to post on his site for comparison purposes.

In general male celebrities tend to exaggerate their height by two inches if they're 6' 3" and under; if they're taller than that they tend to either report their height accurately or report their height as lower so that they don't lose parts for being too much taller than the other actors.  In that celebheights entry above you can see quotes from Perlman where he has claimed in the past that he was 6' 2", but he likely never was.

Any leading man under 6 feet almost universally exaggerates their height.  Robert Downey, Jr. has been wearing 2 inch lifts during the entire time he played Iron Man, including in public appearances.  Not sure if he wore lifts before Iron Man, but he always exaggerated his height by at least two inches as is standard.  I mostly think he wore the lifts so he didn't look shorter than Gwyneth Paltrow since she plays Pepper Potts, but Paltrow is a bit over an inch taller than he is and always looks much taller than him when she wears heels that more than offset his lifts.

Edited December 7, 2023 by fantastic_four

[Mr Sneeze]

On 12/5/2023 at 11:06 AM, Chip Cataldo said:

Please don't get this thread locked, guys.

Chip, have you been reading any of the new books after Hickmans run. I think it’s Slott writing?

If so, any thoughts about it?

Edited December 7, 2023 by Mr Sneeze

[VintageComics]

On 12/7/2023 at 7:57 AM, fantastic_four said:

There's a dude who specializes in figuring out celebrity heights both currently and at their peak.  He thinks Perlman is a bit under 5' 11" now, but used to be around 6' 0" when he was younger.

https://www.celebheights.com/s/Ron-Perlman-67.html

The guy in the pic on the page is the guy who runs the site; he's Irish and is 5' 8" for comparison against Perlman.  He makes an effort to get pics with celebrities when he can to post on his site for comparison purposes.

In general male celebrities tend to exaggerate their height by two inches if they're 6' 3" and under; if they're taller than that they tend to either report their height accurately or report their height as lower so that they don't lose parts for being too much taller than the other actors.  In that celebheights entry above you can see quotes from Perlman where he has claimed in the past that he was 6' 2", but he likely never was.

Any leading man under 6 feet almost universally exaggerates their height.  Robert Downey, Jr. has been wearing 2 inch lifts during the entire time he played Iron Man, including in public appearances.  Not sure if he wore lifts before Iron Man, but he always exaggerated his height by at least two inches as is standard.  I mostly think he wore the lifts so he didn't look shorter than Gwyneth Paltrow since she plays Pepper Potts, but Paltrow is a bit over an inch taller than he is and always looks much taller than him when she wears heels that more than offset his lifts.

Yes, but what are their shoe sizes? 

[VintageComics]

On 12/7/2023 at 12:44 AM, jimjum12 said:

I met Ron Perlman and had expected him to be of epic proportion, but he was only a little taller than me, and I'm short. GOD BLESS...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

I hung out with Linda Hamilton at a NYC comic con once year. She was TINY!!

Which was amazing considering how she looked larger than life in Terminator.