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

[Get Marwood & I]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:27 PM, VintageComics said:

I fully support this, but feel it's important to say that it's not WHAT you do but HOW you do it. 

I took that photo myself at a convention a few years back. I was struck by how many young girls were there dressed up. I counted about five Jodie Whittaker Doctor Whos as I recall. I think her tenure was terrible myself - bad writing, acting and characterisation - but it's unlikely that they would pick up on that just as we didn't spot terrible writing in the comics of our past. But those girls were inspired enough to dress up and join the party and that's a good thing I think. We're not there yet, but maybe one day we'll achieve that balance and just make great films and shows with everyone, for everyone. 

 

[Bosco685]

Think the Audience Score will be set to 84%, 86% or 88%?

[1950's war comics]

On 11/8/2023 at 8:16 PM, paqart said:

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.

thank you for putting this into words that every one can understand , unfortunately Hollyweird does not care anymore

[1950's war comics]

On 11/8/2023 at 8:31 PM, paqart said:

Another point: this goes beyond gender swapping. If you look at Disney's princess movies, you see plenty of female leads. In fact, the lead character in almost every Disney animated feature is female: Belle, Cinderella, Snow White, Ariel, Jasmine, and on and on. There is absolutely no lack of big parts for female characters at Disney

100% correct and everyone knows it.. so how come we never hear  about this on the news, or read this fact in rolling stone magazine or 99% of the print media ?

 

[1950's war comics]

this has been a good chat board discussion with a lot of brilliant  insight  !! and for that i thank those who provided said insight  

[Nick Furious]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:07 PM, VintageComics said:

In fact, I would say that the overwhelming majority of women I've personally known (including my daughters) and my exes or women I've dated have clearly stated to me that they LOVE being traditional women

That's because you're a pirate.  Traditional women love a pirate, Fabio.  

[fantastic_four]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:18 PM, Nick Furious said:

Strangely, I'm one of the few people here who actually really enjoyed the first Captain Marvel movie.  I thought it was well-written, well-acted and a lot of fun to watch.  It was a fairly complex movie with a lot of development of Skrulls, Nick Fury, CM memory holes, etc.  I really liked the way it navigated the Skrulls from antagonists to sympathetic characters in the MCU while transitioning the Kree from good guys to antagonists.  

No, you're in the majority of fans and critics, and I also suspect you're in the majority within people who post regularly in this forum.  We just don't feel as compelled to keep hailing the quality of a 2018 film as much as others feel compelled to keep dumping on it.  

There's a separate thread in this forum where people rank the best superhero films, and I still have Captain Marvel somewhere in the second half of the top 30 or so.

[Bosco685]

On 11/9/2023 at 7:56 AM, fantastic_four said:

 We just don't feel as compelled to keep hailing the quality of a 2018 film as much as others feel compelled to keep dumping on it.  

How do you feel about the 2019 film though?

[fantastic_four]

The usual pattern for Marvel films is that the early reviews on the meta-review sites skew high, and as more reviews come in they start to go down.  So if a film is around say 80% after the first few hours of a review embargo being lifted then it usually ends up around 70% to 75%.

For some reason this film is reversing that pattern.  It started out around 55% and has steadily risen up to around 61%.  WTF?  Why are these Captain Marvel films reversing usual trends even among professional critics?  Do superhero fan critics tend to hate Brie Larson, too, and it isn't until the mainstream critics get their reviews in closer to the film's release date that the consensus raises the score?  

[makeminemarvel]

'The Marvels' headed for bad box office open (cnbc.com)

[jsilverjanet]

On 11/9/2023 at 5:13 AM, 1950's war comics said:

this has been a good chat board discussion with a lot of brilliant  insight  !! and for that i thank those who provided said insight  

post of the year

[jsilverjanet]

On 11/9/2023 at 12:22 AM, VintageComics said:

I'm not very well versed in moderns but I did read the Ultimates 20 years ago, and I think it's safe to say that Ultimates propelled (or was partly responsible in propelling) Iron Man into being the A-lister he is today.

I don't think he was before that, was he?

I think it was Bendis who propelled Iron Man into a key role by writing Civil War

 

[paqart]

On 11/9/2023 at 1:20 AM, mr_highgrade said:

I also don't think Iron man was a A-lister character back in those days. 

When I was a kid "A-List" meant Fantastic Four, X-Men, Hulk, and Spider-Man. That's it. The Avengers was not "A" tier because its group members came from other titles as opposed to being created in their own title. Iron Man (Tales of Suspense), Thor (Journey into Mystery), Ant-Man (Tales to Astonish) were all second tier. The proof was that they either didn't have their own title (Ant-Man) or they didn't have a self-titled #1 issue (Thor), or their #1 came out years after they were introduced somewhere else (Iron Man).

[LOC Collectibles]

On 11/9/2023 at 8:28 AM, jsilverjanet said:

I think it was Bendis who propelled Iron Man into a key role by writing Civil War

 

I was just about to mention this. I looked at the character differently after that story arc.

[kimik]

On 11/9/2023 at 7:55 AM, paqart said:

When I was a kid "A-List" meant Fantastic Four, X-Men, Hulk, and Spider-Man. That's it. The Avengers was not "A" tier because its group members came from other titles as opposed to being created in their own title. Iron Man (Tales of Suspense), Thor (Journey into Mystery), Ant-Man (Tales to Astonish) were all second tier. The proof was that they either didn't have their own title (Ant-Man) or they didn't have a self-titled #1 issue (Thor), or their #1 came out years after they were introduced somewhere else (Iron Man).

FF stopped being an A-List property 40 or so years ago, and the Hulk dropped off before that. Neither one can carry a regular ongoing title, or a movie franchise........

[LOC Collectibles]

On 11/9/2023 at 9:49 AM, kimik said:

FF stopped being an A-List property 40 or so years ago, and the Hulk dropped off before that. Neither one can carry a regular ongoing title, or a movie franchise........

Immortal Hulk was really good recently. I read that entire run and don't really read moderns anymore. They're trying to push Fantastic Four again as well. I haven't had a chance to read the new run but have been hearing good things. 

[kimik]

On 11/9/2023 at 8:56 AM, LOC Collectibles said:

On 11/9/2023 at 8:49 AM, kimik said:

FF stopped being an A-List property 40 or so years ago, and the Hulk dropped off before that. Neither one can carry a regular ongoing title, or a movie franchise........

Immortal Hulk was really good recently. I read that entire run and don't really read moderns anymore. They're trying to push Fantastic Four again as well. I haven't had a chance to read the new run but have been hearing good things. 

Immortal Hulk was fun for the first 20ish issues, but does not make the Hulk an A-lister again. There are really only 5 A-list comic properties - ASM, X-Men/Wolverine for Marvel; Batman and Superman for DC; and TMNT. The rest are B, C, D, etc........

[VintageComics]

On 11/9/2023 at 8:40 AM, fantastic_four said:

The usual pattern for Marvel films is that the early reviews on the meta-review sites skew high, and as more reviews come in they start to go down.  So if a film is around say 80% after the first few hours of a review embargo being lifted then it usually ends up around 70% to 75%.

For some reason this film is reversing that pattern.  It started out around 55% and has steadily risen up to around 61%.  WTF?  Why are these Captain Marvel films reversing usual trends even among professional critics?  Do superhero fan critics tend to hate Brie Larson, too, and it isn't until the mainstream critics get their reviews in closer to the film's release date that the consensus raises the score?  

In peer reviewed studies, it's been proven that if you put a hot lead in the main role, viewership will steadily increase over time. 

[VintageComics]

On 11/9/2023 at 9:28 AM, jsilverjanet said:

On 11/9/2023 at 1:22 AM, VintageComics said:

I'm not very well versed in moderns but I did read the Ultimates 20 years ago, and I think it's safe to say that Ultimates propelled (or was partly responsible in propelling) Iron Man into being the A-lister he is today.

I don't think he was before that, was he?

I think it was Bendis who propelled Iron Man into a key role by writing Civil War

I remember that now that you mention it. So Bendis' run was before Ultimates?

I vividly remember Iron Man breaking into the forefront around the mid 2000s or so. This was punctuated by the OSPG in 2006 when all of the Marvel keys exploded in value. TOS #39 and JIM #83 went through the roof that year, 2 years before the 1st movie release so buzz (not Buzetta) was already building. Who remembers the 2006 OSPG?

There was definitely a slow build to the character leading up to the 2008 movie release that may have predated the 1st movie by a decade. 

[namisgr]

On 11/9/2023 at 9:55 AM, paqart said:

When I was a kid "A-List" meant Fantastic Four, X-Men, Hulk, and Spider-Man. That's it. The Avengers was not "A" tier because its group members came from other titles as opposed to being created in their own title. Iron Man (Tales of Suspense), Thor (Journey into Mystery), Ant-Man (Tales to Astonish) were all second tier. The proof was that they either didn't have their own title (Ant-Man) or they didn't have a self-titled #1 issue (Thor), or their #1 came out years after they were introduced somewhere else (Iron Man).

Hulk lasted all of 6 issues in his first solo go-round.  In my experience reading superhero books for the first time around 1963 and collecting them regularly starting in '72 is that Thor was considered by most hobbyists to be a top tier Marvel book.  That Marvel started him off by giving him a trial in JIM made no difference to the stature of the character and series, and by issue 97 Marvel's commitment through assigning the art job to Kirby, which he maintained for the next 80+ issues, made the top tier status plain, as did the central role given to him as well as Loki starting in the first ish of Avengers.  On the other hand, Kirby handed the reigns on X-Men over to other artists shortly after its launch, which along with sales figures argues for it being at a tier below JIM/Thor.

Just another old timer's take.

Edited November 9, 2023 by namisgr