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

[Bosco685]

On 11/13/2023 at 6:54 PM, Buzzetta said:

No dinner pics please.  You know the unwritten rules. 

Better watch out. I hear Mike coming down the hallway.

[Bosco685]

Even Jon Snow knows this much...

 

Edited November 13, 2023 by Bosco685

[Buzzetta]

On 11/13/2023 at 6:57 PM, Bosco685 said:

Even Jon Snow knows this much...

 

 

[NewWorldOrder]

Why Why Whyyyyyyyy did I see this movie.

Worst MCU movie of all time by a longest mile in superhero history.

This is rock bottom for the MCU, I am hoping since they knew it was going to bomb, and them pushing back movies heading into 2024 to 2025 that for God sakes maybe this is the final financial straw that they finally got the message to change.

They have Doctor Doom, Galactus, Silver Surfer, Fantastic Four, and X-Men catalog to use.  It's time to stop the pandering and come back to making millions of dollars.

There is no such thing as superhero fatigue, it's idiotic storytelling and bad movies fatigue.

[N7 M31]

On 11/13/2023 at 2:13 PM, Buzzetta said:

 

I mean, we all know what he is but his kind should never go unchecked.   I stand by what I said about and to him earlier. 

The issue with debating the messaging is that some forget that with many of these stories from yesteryear, what is now seen as common sense was taboo at the time that they were first making waves. 

I agree with you . It was never my intent to stop anyone from responding to (_____) comments, I just felt that more honest replies to his comments were incoming and that would possibly get people banned (including myself) and the thread shut down.

[Bosco685]

We just need Doug the Goon to straighten our beloved MCU out...

 

[VintageComics]

On 11/13/2023 at 10:15 AM, namisgr said:

It's not sarcastic.  Based on your post I responded to, you now appear to accept that movies have been made with messages for a very long time.  Perhaps from their inception, although you made no mention of that specifically.  

A different viewpoint than that was the subject of discussion earlier in this thread and before that in the Barbie movie thread in which you participated, that there was a transition in movies from pure storytelling to messaging.  But since the time of Fritz Lang and Walt Disney that hasn't been so.

I'm not sure if this is just disingenuous or ignorance, but remember the word intent we talked about? Intent is everything and you can't remove it from a discussion to make the discussion abstract.

The intent of the messaging has changed.

The source material for the messaging used come be from the bottom up, so Disney appealed to it's base by putting out movies the base wanted to see. 

The source material for the messaging today is coming from top down, so Disney is putting out movies THEY THINK YOU SHOULD SEE.

This is driven by corporate interests, not by consumer interests.

The two are wholly different things. I assume you approve of the latter?

 

[Larryw7]

Can't we go back to discussing strudel?

[Bosco685]

On 11/13/2023 at 7:13 PM, Larryw7 said:

Can't we go back to discussing strudel?

[VintageComics]

On 11/13/2023 at 10:48 AM, paqart said:

Disappointing, but true. In an effort to find entertainment without the type of odious messaging that fills modern entertainment products, I have stepped back through the decades, trying to find something I can enjoy. You are right that messaging is always present, but the type of messaging that dominates does change over time. The current focus is more flagrant today, but can be found as far back as Father Knows Best in the 1950's, or even earlier in films. In less disguised form, modern themes can be found in Barney Miller from the mid-1970's, M*A*S*H, That Girl!, the Mary Tyler Moore Show, and many others. 

The first TV series I have been able to find that seems mostly neutral, in direct reverse chronological order from today, is Perry Mason. The actors themselves would have fit in with today's crowd, but the scripts are not filled with the characteristics that make me stop the playback and look for something else. Films have more variety in messages, making it easier to find something that appeals, even in more modern films. In any given year, there are usually a few films that lack the ideological poison de jour. However, to find a large number of American films that would look foreign by contemporary standards, you'd have to go back to the early 1950's or 1940's.

Ironically, the early 1930's and 1920's start looking more "modern" by today's standards. A biography of producer Irving Thalberg does a good job explaining why. It's because the people in the business of making films have always been a similar type with few exceptions. They have always wanted to make the kind of movie we see today, though I doubt they wanted it built into their bylaws. The new rule that to be eligible for nomination in the Academy Awards, you must have a certain diverse set of characters, would likely have been rejected by even the most libertine producer in the 1930's.

Speaking for myself, that rule would inspire me to do the opposite, and not have a diverse cast until the rule was rescinded. The cast should be whatever the script demands, and the script should contain what the story requires. A sign of bad writing is the inclusion of unnecessary or distracting story elements. The Oscar rule ensures that movies are full of such distractions, and consequently, poor writing. One of the few situations I can think of where the rule is a natural fit for the story, is a movie about how dumb the rule is. Another would be a film centered on a situation where demographics tend to mix, like a heist at the DMV or a big city restaurant. Changing the race of mythological Norse characters is strange and distracting unless the casting and script are perfect. Anything short of that is an unnecessary and unwanted distraction.

You have a wealth of examples you choose from, your replies are non-combative, factual, very articulate and pretty much close ended. I wish I could write like that.

I'd never said anything about the last bolded line (changing the race of Norse characters) but it's objectively strange and even ridiculous to have Norse characters played by non-Norse characters. 

To be fair, I didn't mind Edris Alba playing Heimdall very much, but him being very good looking helps people accept that role. The dude is a stud and because of that, back in 2011 most let it slide...but it always stood strange with me and I think with a lot of people. 

Imagine if Django in Django Unchained was played by Leonardo DeCaprio? 

This is a clear example of how viewers are expected to just accept things that are wholly unrealistic, objectively speaking and are contrary to the spirit of the truth.

Not a big deal as an isolated incident, but it starts to take much larger form when viewed in the context of the entire conversation. 

[VintageComics]

On 11/13/2023 at 12:40 PM, Cat said:

I was LITERALLY dumbfounded that someone who makes such wondrous claims about being a "grandiose free and critical thinker" would take his opinions on IRL Germans and Japanese people from... World War II movies, presumably ones produced mostly by the USA, at that. I mean, c'mon. The joke writes itself on that one. 

I've mostly stayed quiet because I haven't seen the film yet, and I'm not so sure if I'm keen on it. My best buddy really enjoyed it, and he had the same level of knowledge as me going in, and our tastes are remmarkably similar, so it may be worth it after all. I'll definitely wait until Disney Plus though, that's for sure. 

My other comments have been on the remarkably off-topic politics, conservatism, COVID talk, etc etc that's attempted to be pushed through this thread in varying ways. I've called it out once I think? 

I leave anything you do, Roy. You grandstand as you will, believing you're invincible. All the while, those points rack up. I'll let you write yourself out of here. Until then, you're merely an annoyance. Always changing topics to be about yourself. Or stretching their parameters to try and include things hinting at COVID, or whatever today's pet conspiracy theory is, especially if it's a death. It gets very tiring.

Things were so much nicer and more pleasant during your 3 month sabbatical. 

 

 

What a Quantam leap in logic. 

Dude, all that post says is that you're mean spirited and don't have the self control to ignore what doesn't interest you. Sorry you feel that way. 

Edited November 14, 2023 by VintageComics

[Buzzetta]

On 11/13/2023 at 7:08 PM, Bill C said:

at this point in the game, arrogantly bragging that you watch MSM, thinking you're impressive and that you're hearing actual legitimacy. Now there's an obvious echo chamber, and no wonder you're incredulous at anyone who goes outside the groupthink. Can't get into it further on this site without posts getting wiped-- but you just continue to do you, lol.

Why, thank you. 

Edited November 14, 2023 by Buzzetta

[N7 M31]

On 11/13/2023 at 4:13 PM, Larryw7 said:

Can't we go back to discussing strudel?

Yes . But your post must contain one meme or 1000 words.

[Bosco685]

This thread is on fire

[RedRaven]

On 11/13/2023 at 5:24 PM, drotto said:

Yes, the female demagraphic that Disney was aiming for and hoping would show up stayed home.

I heard a commentator once state that comic book movies are basically structured as male power fantasies and as such primarily appeal to men. He then went on to say that a female hero in that sort of story would not attract a female audience as it is still a story designed to appeal to male ideas of fantasy. There was further digression into Rom-Com demographics and such. I will try to find the video.

 

Edited for clarification: Rom-Com = Romantic Comedy, not humorous escapades of our favorite space knight.

Edited November 14, 2023 by RedRaven

[bentbryan]

On 11/13/2023 at 7:29 PM, Bosco685 said:

This thread is on fire

I listen to this one podcast, Bad Movies Rule, where they go back and watch movies that are generally looked upon as not being very good.  And every episode they “give” an award to the most useless actor/ character of the movie they are reviewing called the “Garbage Can Full of Dirt Award”.   I think this thread now qualifies for said award.  

 

[paqart]

On 11/13/2023 at 6:42 PM, Buzzetta said:

I love it how I get a lot of my news from AP Newswire, Reuters, Forbes, The Times, The Wall Street Journal.

I wanted to see what you were linking us to.

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHA

Talk about visiting echo chambers to find your safe space and stroke your nonsense.  Here is the front page of your link.  Like I said, you have a brand that has become your gimmick. 

 

Do you have a relevant point? Or are you simply illustrating the reason why you don't understand the failure of Marvel/Disney?

[paqart]

On 11/13/2023 at 6:48 PM, Bosco685 said:

I wonder if it came down to no central link across all the stories from the studio that made that its biggest marketing message how Kevin Feige had this huge chalkboard spelling everything out for years to come.

If there was a central plan to link this all together, Phase IV and Phase V are not driving that point home. No matter how much money Multiverse of Madness and Wakanda Forever made.

You and others are talking about problems in the MCU as if the paint job on a race car has a significant impact on its Daytona 500 performance. The paint job might have an impact on box office, provided it is cool enough/offensive enough, but it has nothing to do with the speed/performance of the vehicle. I understand it must be incomprehensible that the majority of the original MCU audience, not to be confused with the current MCU audience, doesn't want to have anything to do with the current MCU, but that is how it is. The offensive characteristics may seem small, but they aren't. Imagine your kid brings a girlfriend/boyfriend home to meet you and they track mud into the house. Will you be thinking about it all dinner long? I would. It's the same with the MCU. 

[1950's war comics]

On 11/13/2023 at 10:45 AM, paqart said:

No question about it. I'm not making any effort to hide that fact, so it isn't a particularly novel observation. 

There is another way to look at the princess movies btw, and it is the way they were likely viewed at the time they came out. Women who married and took care of the household were not looked down upon, and many (men and women) recognized the real value they contributed to society. This included essential support to the husband's workplace success, often included chores that are not much different from what people today are paid to do. The difference is that as part of a household, a woman had more freedom in some ways than they do today, where they exist at the beck and call of an ever-changing stream of corporate bosses. 

Not all women want to give up on a family or a household to pursue economic triumphs outside the family in a commercial workspace. Some hate the idea of doing that, even those educated in top universities . I know, because I married one. The workplace isn't necessarily a paradise for women freed from household "drudgery", and describing it that way is an insult to every woman who genuinely enjoyed raising a family, of whom there are many.

As for Native Americans, you are shifting the topic. This thread isn't about which marginalized or misrepresented groups absolutely must have movies made about them, it's about movies that 1) don't appeal to their previous audience, thus resulting in low ticket sales, and 2) a new version of inclusion that is just as fake as what it is trying to replace.

I grew up with the Lone Ranger and Tonto on TV. I loved the show,  and genuinely admired Tonto. He wasn't a lesser man because his role was secondary to the Lone Ranger. More importantly, I later learned that the version of American Indian life found in film and TV was false. Later, I read books written by ethnographers, like George Catlin, who lived with Native American tribes in the early 1800's. Caitlin's portrayal was self-consciously sympathetic, but it was nothing like what we see, or have ever seen, in popular entertainment. Based on those works, early Native American tribes ran the gamut from Hamas/ISIS levels of savagery all the way up to completely peaceful monks that we hear about in the Himalayan mountains. Our pop culture has blended these unrealistically, while removing the most negative traits, to create more sympathetic portrayals. My opinion, both are wrong.

That said, sometimes the most unexpected movies are the most realistic. For instance, based on my reading of the relevant non-fiction literature on the subject, "The Exorcist" is the most realistic paranormal thriller ever made. Weirdly enough, "Ghost" is a distant second. But again, realism isn't the issue. The issue is appeal. There are many completely unrealistic movies that are nevertheless engaging. Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Doctor Strange are all examples of appealing but unrealistic movies. Realism isn't required to make something interesting or appealing. The most realistic film I've ever seen is "Tora! Tora! Tora!" about the attack on Pearl Harbor. It is an excellent movie, but not all films have to be like that.

You seem to think that the change of narrative allows a different perspective into modern films. That is true. Again, it is irrelevant. What is relevant is that I, and many others, don't like the change. It is also relevant that the number of people who have rejected the change is greater than the number of people who embrace it. That is fine, but not for movies that cost $150 million to produce. If they reduced the budgets to around $30 million, they might have enough of an audience to make a profit.

Or, Disney could make this new type of movie as charity projects by funding them with other movies marketed to the original MCU audience. Disney could have two brands, MCU, and MCYOU. Branded that way, customers like myself wouldn't avoid everything made by Disney, but would make a bee line for the MCU material. Other people, perhaps yourself, would avoid the material you find offensive by patronizing the MCYOU instead. If this was done, the money that went into the MCU might even be enough to fully subsidize the MCYOU movies so that they could operate at a loss without harming the bottom line. Putting everything into the same basket does hurt the bottom line, or changing the fare from MCU to MCYOU, because the existing market is disenfranchised. It's like trading gold bars for a handful of fake magic beans: not a good trade.

 

truer words have never been put in print

[Bosco685]

On 11/13/2023 at 8:05 PM, paqart said:

You and others are talking about problems in the MCU as if the paint job on a race car has a significant impact on its Daytona 500 performance. The paint job might have an impact on box office, provided it is cool enough/offensive enough, but it has nothing to do with the speed/performance of the vehicle. I understand it must be incomprehensible that the majority of the original MCU audience, not to be confused with the current MCU audience, doesn't want to have anything to do with the current MCU, but that is how it is. The offensive characteristics may seem small, but they aren't. Imagine your kid brings a girlfriend/boyfriend home to meet you and they track mud into the house. Will you be thinking about it all dinner long? I would. It's the same with the MCU. 

How does not having a central theme plan comparable to ancillary distractions?

You are mixing together two vastly different topics. Nobody said, "Captain Marvel's blue in the suit didn't match her comic book source. HATE IT!"