THE MARVELS starring Brie Larson, Iman Vellani and Teyonna Parris (2023) 9 9

[D84]

Wow...

Edited November 9, 2023 by D84

[VintageComics]

On 11/8/2023 at 7:15 PM, Buzzetta said:

On 11/8/2023 at 7:04 PM, VintageComics said:

Come on. Really? This is uncalled for in any setting an EXACTLY the point he was trying to make. 

Imagine what I would say to him in person.

And your point would come across the same way.

You can make your points without making it personal or baiting. 

And quite frankly, I've learned something from the interaction between the two of you (genuinely) but that sort of negativity doesn't help anyone. 

 

[media_junkie]

On 11/8/2023 at 7:18 PM, D84 said:

Wow...

Why would you make an 11 hour round trip to go see a bad movie (or even a good movie)?

[1950's war comics]

On 11/8/2023 at 3:32 PM, paqart said:

However, if you want to see truly strong female characters, they aren't in the MCU, nor in the last 15 years of filmmaking. The strongest female characters that I've ever seen are in Gone With the Wind, Goodbye Mr. Chips, Mrs. Miniver, All About Eve, Random Harvest, and Sound of Music. In more modern films, Linda Hamilton in T2, Sigourney Weaver in Alien, Julia Roberts in Erin Brockovich, and Sissy Spacek in Marie or Coal Miner's Daughter.

brilliant analysis !! and oh so true !

[Buzzetta]

On 11/8/2023 at 7:21 PM, VintageComics said:

And your point would come across the same way.

You can make your points without making it personal or baiting. 

And quite frankly, I've learned something from the interaction between the two of you (genuinely) but that sort of negativity doesn't help anyone. 

 

I can and have had a discussion with you (for example) with opposing points in person.  We can still walk away from one another and still disagree and I would still buy you a glass of milk and pick you out the best slice of pie at Martha's Country Bakery they offered that day. 

Shameless plug... https://marthascountrybakery.com/

 

But there are others that I would watch with glee as they received the reaction I have witnessed others get when they tried to espouse their similar nonsense.   "I didn't see nuthin"

 

With glee. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Buzzetta

[paperheart]

On 11/8/2023 at 4:18 PM, D84 said:

Wow...

eagerly anticipating the pitch meeting

[VintageComics]

On 11/8/2023 at 7:40 PM, Buzzetta said:

But there are others that I would watch with glee as they received the reaction I have witnessed others get when they tried to espouse their similar nonsense.   "I didn't see nuthin"

 

With glee. 

All I can say is that is pretty disappointing of you and I totally disagree. Oh well. Moving on...

[fastballspecial]

On 11/8/2023 at 6:15 PM, Bill C said:

You may have forgotten that people also want:

1) The version of the characters they grew up with- not swapped in any way

2) An actual good story

3) A lack of getting smashed over the head and preached to by writers, directors, actors, etc that are anything but morally sound people

Yeah I thought of all that as a teenage hoping my characters would be in movies. 

Look, I liked several movies I am sure you have not. I go to be entertained. I leave my viewpoints
at home try it sometime.

You can sit on your rocker at home and gripe about the movies and be happy. Personally all go see most of them
and enjoy a good % of them. Why? Because I waited decades to see them in the movies good or bad.

 

[LOC Collectibles]

On 11/8/2023 at 7:33 PM, fastballspecial said:

Yeah I thought of all that as a teenage hoping my characters would be in movies. 

Look, I liked several movies I am sure you have not. I go to be entertained. I leave my viewpoints
at home try it sometime.

You can sit on your rocker at home and gripe about the movies and be happy. Personally all go see most of them
and enjoy a good % of them. Why? Because I waited decades to see them in the movies good or bad.

 

It comes down to this.. I'm not buying a product that is mediocre. Ever, if I can help it. If I purchase a product and it's terrible, and then purchase it again and it's terrible, I'm not buying it again until they change the product. The last great movie from Marvel was Endgame. Everything since has been Meh. I'm not spending 60 more dollars on a product that isn't proven (Price for me and my 2 kids to go to the movies - which is insane in itself). Now they change the formula and start churning out hits again I'm all in. Until then they have a lot to prove. I didn't wait all my life to experience mediocrity. I had that with superhero movies when I was a kid.

[paqart]

On 11/8/2023 at 8:55 PM, LOC Collectibles said:

It comes down to this.. I'm not buying a product that is mediocre. Ever, if I can help it. If I purchase a product and it's terrible, and then purchase it again and it's terrible, I'm not buying it again until they change the product. The last great movie from Marvel was Endgame. Everything since has been Meh. I'm not spending 60 more dollars on a product that isn't proven (Price for me and my 2 kids to go to the movies - which is insane in itself). Now they change the formula and start churning out hits again I'm all in. Until then they have a lot to prove. I didn't wait all my life to experience mediocrity. I had that with superhero movies when I was a kid.

Agreed. And let's not forget all the non-MCU Marvel movies made prior to Iron Man. The best were probably the Sam Raimi Spider-Man movies, but they weren't in the same league as the first 20 or so MCU movies. The rest were well below the standard of the MCU movies I don't like. Until the MCU, I expected nothing from Marvel. A Marvel character did not add value. As far as I was concerned, they were evaluated against all other movies on equal footing. Spider-Man was about equivalent to a B thriller. But then we had Iron Man and everything between it and Endgame. Those movies were special. They did a good job of staying true to the characters. When they strayed, they did it in an interesting way, like with The Ancient One, Nick Fury, and Ego. I didn't like those stories because they mimicked the comics. In my opinion, they were much better than the comics.

Spider-Man mimicked the comics, as did the Fox X-Men movies. None of them transcended the source material, but most of the MCU's offerings did. I had only two real complaints about the characters in the first group of movies. They were: Jane Foster and Black Panther. Why was Jane Foster an astrophysicist? Is a nurse not good enough? Personally, I think nurses are a lot more useful than astrophysicists in most situations. I also think it makes more sense for Thor's personality type to fall in love with a kind, caring, and strong personality who expresses those qualities taking care of others as a nurse. I did not understand the appeal of Natalie Portman. She is pretty, but so is Sif, and Sif has all the other qualities someone like Thor would be expected to appreciate. Regardless, I liked the first two Thor movies. The only thing I didn't like about the Black Panther is the same thing I don't like in most movies where actors have to play either royalty or very intelligent characters. In both cases, actors normally (not always) become mute blocks of wood. Boseman had zero personality or charisma because he was so bland. James Woods and Alan Rickman wouldn't do it, nor the British actor who played the fake Mandarin in Iron Man III, but they are exceptions. 

Endgame was when everything changed. It was fantastic except for every frame that had Captain Marvel in it. Take those out, modify the script to accommodate her removal, and it is a much better film. Her rescue of Stark was a deux et machina solution, as was the end where she defeated Thanos' army by herself. That was just lazy writing, or producers desperate to make Larsen likable. Although Captain Marvel came out before Endgame, I think of it as belonging to the later group of movies, though it is better than many of them. It has its irritating points, but not as many as later films. I'd rather watch Captain Marvel five times than Eternals once.

[drotto]

On 11/8/2023 at 5:37 PM, Buzzetta said:

I switched the pronouns and wonder if you ever felt the same about the reverse regarding the previous decades of cinema.

Packy my good lad, as I told you once before, whoever she was, she said 'no' probably, many, many, years ago.  It's time to move on.  It's still affecting you. 

 

@jsilverjanet next time, just text me.  If I wasn't doing a meeting right now, I might have missed this.   

 

and just for fun... @greggy

 

I agree that all  people should have an opportunity to have a movie where they see themselves on screen, and that many groups were vastly under represented in the past.  Now part of that was wrong, and part was related to the shifting demographics of the country as well as changing values. We live in a different world then 50 years ago.  I also firmly agree that people are capable of liking and relating to characters that do not share superficial characteristics.  That we can relate to characters on a much deeper and more meaningful level, but that requires good writing, and developing these characters on a deeper level. You do not correct the wrong by completely eliminating certain groups from the equation because they were clearly over represented in the past. 

 

So, how does this relate to what is happening in the MCU right now?  Marvel and Star Wars were purchased by Disney primarily to strengthen their position in the market with relation to men and more specifically boys. They were viewed as a girl brand known primarily for their princesses (not saying all girls like princesses, or all boys like superheroes).  These properties were intended to compensate for that.  It was a smart finical move that would greatly improve their fan base from a demographic standpoint. So how does it make sense that they are taking boy oriented brands and essentially turning them into female oriented brands? This bring Disney back to the problem they had 20 years ago, what content is being made for little boys if you take their traditional properties away? If it is essential that little girls see themselves represented on screen, is that not also important for boys?

[Beige]

Ouch.

 

 

At least Ms Marvel (Kamala) was well received, pretty much by most reviewers.

 

I thought Iman Vellani was great in Ms Marvel - I liked the show too - outside of her though, not much to like apparently.

 

Can't see a Marvels #3 anytime soon based on the reviews out there.

 

This might finally convince Disney to stop and start again.

 

Less but better content, and honour the legacy characters.

 

 

[fantastic_four]

On 11/8/2023 at 8:55 PM, LOC Collectibles said:

The last great movie from Marvel was Endgame. Everything since has been Meh.

Mostly agree, except that No Way Home exists and Marvel made it, plus it's even better than Endgame.

[Ken Aldred]

On 11/9/2023 at 1:55 AM, LOC Collectibles said:

It comes down to this.. I'm not buying a product that is mediocre. Ever, if I can help it. If I purchase a product and it's terrible, and then purchase it again and it's terrible, I'm not buying it again until they change the product.

I became a bit jaded after Endgame and during lockdown.  Stopped going to the cinema to watch any superhero films from Black Widow onwards. Happy to have stayed away, apart from maybe the two Spider-Man films, which I’ll likely catch up with on Blu-ray, now that I know they’re worth it.  The rest, well, I’m so jaded that I’m comfortable waiting for them to appear free of charge on British Freeview HD, whenever that might be: I really don’t care.  I did go to watch GOTG 3 at the cinema,  which was okay, but the price for taking a chance on a bad film is becoming too high, with ticket prices up 50 % recently.

[fastballspecial]

On 11/8/2023 at 7:55 PM, LOC Collectibles said:

It comes down to this.. I'm not buying a product that is mediocre. Ever, if I can help it. If I purchase a product and it's terrible, and then purchase it again and it's terrible, I'm not buying it again until they change the product. The last great movie from Marvel was Endgame. Everything since has been Meh. I'm not spending 60 more dollars on a product that isn't proven (Price for me and my 2 kids to go to the movies - which is insane in itself). Now they change the formula and start churning out hits again I'm all in. Until then they have a lot to prove. I didn't wait all my life to experience mediocrity. I had that with superhero movies when I was a kid.

Yes many have been Meh and Flash really bothered me how it was 2 movies in one. 

All go the movies and enjoy them for what they are with no expectations. 
My local theater gives free popcorn and matinees are pretty cheap after 1st week.
Usually someone in the theater on the way out will have discussion about the movie
with me as well. I will usually ask them on the way out what they thought. 

What I don't or like to hear and its much worse on Facebook is just the out and out hatred
and toxicity for the actors that take these roles mostly women. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by fastballspecial

[Ken Aldred]

On 11/9/2023 at 3:16 AM, fastballspecial said:

My local theater gives free popcorn and matinees are pretty cheap after 1st week.

The local cinemas here don’t discount at all, unfortunately. No such incentive.

[VintageComics]

On 11/8/2023 at 9:22 PM, paqart said:

Those movies were special. They did a good job of staying true to the characters. When they strayed, they did it in an interesting way, like with The Ancient One, Nick Fury, and Ego.

This is a great observation and one that flies against the face that people say that some of us just want it "like it was in the comics". That's not the case at all. 

I've always been totally OK with changes to the cannon, and have openly stated why: You can't make movies true to the comics because they don't translate well.

Do you really want to see Spider-man running around in pajama tights like in the comics?

Do you really want to see how Thing and Alicia "Netflix and chill"? It's biologically IMPOSSIBLE. 

But the changes need to be driven to make a better end product, not a 'better accepted' end product. 

If you have a good product, it will be better accepted. 

It's a fundamental law of nature that's immutable. People always generally choose what's better over what is worse.

On 11/8/2023 at 9:26 PM, drotto said:

I also firmly agree that people are capable of liking and relating to characters that do not share superficial characteristics. 

Of course. Who wants to be patronised? It's an insult. 

On 11/8/2023 at 9:26 PM, drotto said:

So, how does this relate to what is happening in the MCU right now?  Marvel and Star Wars were purchased by Disney primarily to strengthen their position in the market with relation to men and more specifically boys. They were viewed as a girl brand known primarily for their princesses (not saying all girls like princesses, or all boys like superheroes).  These properties were intended to compensate for that.  It was a smart finical move that would greatly improve their fan base from a demographic standpoint. So how does it make sense that they are taking boy oriented brands and essentially turning them into female oriented brands? This bring Disney back to the problem they had 20 years ago, what content is being made for little boys if you take their traditional properties away? If it is essential that little girls see themselves represented on screen, is that not also important for boys?

That's an excellent point and one I hadn't heard of. 

So why ARE they doing the opposite of what they'd originally intended? The answer is actually quite easy to solve: Money.

If you can convince any corporation that they can make more money going down a new road, they will go down that road with full force. 

Except what looked good on paper has failed, and so they are back peddling with more force than they initially used to go down that road in the first place.

Money has no soul itself, but it does project the soul of the person managing the money and someone messed up huge. 

From everything I've read, Disney is losing money so quickly they're in serious trouble on many fronts. 

But I don't think that it's just Disney. We've already discussing this in Comics General.

It's Hollywood in general as people are becoming disenchanted with Legacy corporations and their greed and lack of accountability in EVERY industry. Independent projects are thriving because they are putting out what people REALLY want to see and putting put what people actually want is the Golden ticket. 

[Nick Furious]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:17 AM, fantastic_four said:

I agree.  But the other films from this phase for the most part didn't exceed 50 pages in length even long after they were released.  This one is over 100 pages and it hasn't even come out yet.  People are feeling more compelled to take a dump on this movie than any other from this phase.  Why?  

I think it could have something to do with the MCU writer's arbitrary decision to just insert Captain Marvel at the top of the totem pole in the MCU.  Towards the end of the MCU this C-list character shows up and is immediately crowned the "Superman" of the MCU.  More powerful than all the other characters, both A and B list.  The seeming predictability of the "socially conscious" decision to have the most powerful character be a woman may play into the allergic reaction, but I don't think it's the over-arching cause that some would like to believe it is.  Even if CM were a man, I think many longtime MCU fans would be disgruntled at this longtime back-bench character being appointed top-of-the-heap upon arrival.    

[VintageComics]

On 11/8/2023 at 10:47 PM, Nick Furious said:

I think it could have something to do with the MCU writer's arbitrary decision to just insert Captain Marvel at the top of the totem pole in the MCU.  Towards the end of the MCU this C-list character shows up and is immediately crowned the "Superman" of the MCU.  More powerful than all the other characters, both A and B list.  The seeming predictability of the "socially conscious" decision to have the most powerful character be a woman may play into the allergic reaction, but I don't think it's the over-arching cause that some would like to believe it is.  Even if CM were a man, I think many longtime MCU fans would be disgruntled at this longtime back-bench character being appointed top-of-the-heap upon arrival.    

The perfect counterpoint is Tony Stark. 

Marvel literally built a new universe around Stark Industries because they didn't have any other way to have a proper Superteam, having sold off FF and X-men.

So they slowly built up an entire universe, one character at a time and formed a believable, powerful, drama filled Superteam from scratch and it not only worked, it's one of the greatest story arcs in movie history. 

Fast forward to Captain Marvel and it feels like they rushed something out to fill a hole and it isn't working. In fact, it's very similar to what DC did in trying to keep up with Marvel. They literally rushed their projects and blew it.

It took Tony Stark a decade to get there as opposed to just a movie or two for CM.

 

[paqart]

On 11/8/2023 at 10:35 PM, VintageComics said:

 

It's Hollywood in general as people are becoming disenchanted with Legacy corporations and their greed and lack of accountability in EVERY industry. Independent projects are thriving because they are putting out what people REALLY want to see and putting put what people actually want is the Golden ticket. 

I doubt this trend is related to greed or a desire to make money. If it is, the people running the corporations don't understand their audience or how marketing works. If it was pure greed, there would be an analysis of the market. It would look something like this (using Disney as an example):
Current audience (Target Group A): 30% of world population

Desired additional audience (Target Group B): .05% of world population

Scenario 1: Marketing campaign A appeals to Target Group A, ignores Group B. Result, 100% retention Target Group A, persuade 10% of Group B to become customers. New audience: 30.005% world population. Overall change: gain of .005%

Scenario 2: Marketing campaign B appeals to Target Group B, Offends 95% of Group A. Result, loss of 75% Target Group A, persuade 100% of Group B to become customers. New audience: 7.55% world population. Overall change: loss of 22.45% total audience.

This scenario was proven in dramatic fashion with Bud Light. It is the same thing we see going on with Disney. It should have been obvious to any professional with a background in marketing or advertising, as well as anyone in the CEO seat. It is an axiom in business that you don't purposely alienate your core customer unless it simultaneously gains a larger audience. Another core principle has to do with branding: people buy brands based on affinity for the branding. When Disney was branded as family-friendly, wholesome, and safe, they acquired the majority of their audience. Rebranding it as something that is not perceived as family friendly, wholesome, or safe might pick up new customers but is almost certain to lose existing ones. 

The reason is that some brand identities will be repugnant to one group of people even if appealing to another. Those types of branding are very dangerous. Going back to the wholesome brand, it will be appealing to people who identify with wholesome qualities. It will also appeal to people who don't, but can appreciate other qualities, such as entertainment value, clean amusement parks, and high quality animation. On the other end of the spectrum, an unwholesome brand identity, will not have much crossover appeal. For instance, there is a drink I've seen in the store lately called something like "Death Water". It has a black and white skull logo. There is no way I'm buying or drinking that, no matter what it is. Some people will think it is cool, but more won't.

When Disney all but screams "we hate men, we revel in what churchgoers consider immoral lifestyles, and you cannot trust your children to us" I start looking at Disney the same way I look at Death Water.