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

[N7 M31]

On 11/13/2023 at 5:42 PM, VintageComics said:

I just ended the debate with the help of @RedRaven. 

See how we can get to the heart of a matter if we're just allowed to continue respectful discourse?

Serious Question: What debate do you think you've just ended??  

[VintageComics]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:24 PM, N7 M31 said:

Serious Question: What debate do you think you've just ended??  

The debate on why the Marvels movie is struggling at the box office. 

[N7 M31]

On 11/13/2023 at 6:25 PM, VintageComics said:

The debate on why the Marvels movie is struggling at the box office. 

And who exactly are you debating with? 

[EastEnd1]

Anybody who thinks that a Fortune 100 company is more interested in pushing agendas and narratives instead of making money is spending way too much time on conspiracy theory websites.  This is not how major public multinationals that have shareholders and boards to answer to operate.

[VintageComics]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:29 PM, N7 M31 said:

And who exactly are you debating with? 

Pretty much every single person on the internet who thought there was another reason Marvels was flopping.

But specifically in this thread, every single poster - namisgr, Cat, jsilverjanet, Buzzetta and every other person who as name calling, insulting, demeaning, or just plain WRONG about their methodology while trying to get people to stop talking. 

They couldn't accept they were wrong even though the science was NOT ON THEIR SIDE. 

I tried to point it out subtly at first in the Barbie thread and then here but they kept trying to shut the convo down. 

The question I want answered is why they kept insulting people when they were wrong?

--------------------------------------------

What REALLY started to make me think was this post:

On 11/13/2023 at 12:15 PM, Artboy99 said:

I agree, and the post credit scene is about forming a new team...of who? Does anyone honestly like the current characters?

RiRi Williams

Cassie

Kate Bishop

Shuri

FalconCap

Captain Marvel

Ms. Marvel

Other Captain Marvel

She-Hulk

Yelena

Etc.

 

Almost ALL the characters are women and I immediately thought, no woman wants to watch a movie about a female Super-team.

How do I know?

Because if you watch female sports, the audience is dwarfed by the numbers in male audiences.

It's not "inequality". 

It's BIOLOGY. 

And you can't trick nature into doing something it doesn't want to do. EVER. 

Remember Jurassic Park?

 

Edited November 14, 2023 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:36 PM, EastEnd1 said:

Anybody who thinks that a Fortune 100 company is more interested in pushing agendas and narratives instead of making money is spending way too much time on conspiracy theory websites.  This is not how major public multinationals that have shareholders and boards to answer to operate.

It absolutely is. Would you like me to prove it to you? 

They actually don't know who their target audience should be and this is why they crumbled.  

Just look at Bud Light as a test case. Bud still hasn't recovered and may never will. Disney seems to be next.

This isn't anything more than a horrible business move, but HOW they made the horrible business move is next for discussion. 

Would you like to have that discussion because I'm well versed in it. 

[namisgr]

Why The Marvels Bombed At The Box Office

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/the-marvels-box-office-bombed-mcu-future-184509017.html

Edited November 14, 2023 by namisgr

[VintageComics]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:41 PM, namisgr said:

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/the-marvels-box-office-bombed-mcu-future-184509017.html

Yes. Let's again ignore the actual science of how and why men and women are different and instead, fabricate a new reality again. Goodness. 

[paqart]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:36 PM, EastEnd1 said:

Anybody who thinks that a Fortune 100 company is more interested in pushing agendas and narratives instead of making money is spending way too much time on conspiracy theory websites.  This is not how major public multinationals that have shareholders and boards to answer to operate.

Sometimes things don't make sense, but they are true regardless. If I hadn't been there to see it unroll in real time, I never would have expected the Bud Light marketing fiasco.

[paqart]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:40 PM, Buzzetta said:

That we agree on as far as a declining box office for Marvel movies.  It's your reasoning behind it that we do not nor your belief system behind it or of the world in general.   

Before I go to bed, is there anything else that white men need fear as they pull the covers up to their necks?  I was reading more of the "news site" you linked us all to. 

 

This, "white men need fear" assumes facts not in evidence and makes your question into nonsense. 

[EastEnd1]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:40 PM, VintageComics said:

It absolutely is

Nope... I spent thirteen years as a corporate executive at one of The Mouse's chief competitors and sat in the exec and board meetings and I can assure you this is not how major multinationals operate.  You either hit your numbers or your gone... that's how it operates.

[VintageComics]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:49 PM, EastEnd1 said:

On 11/13/2023 at 9:40 PM, VintageComics said:

It absolutely is

Nope... I spent thirteen years as a corporate executive at one of The Mouse's chief competitors and sat in the exec and board meetings and I can assure you this is not how major multinationals operate.  You either hit your numbers or your gone... that's how it operates.

Which time period or year span, if I'm allowed to ask?

Did we meet at San Deigo one year? I think I may have your card still.  Edited because it was a Disney exec.

Edited November 14, 2023 by VintageComics

[EastEnd1]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:50 PM, VintageComics said:

Which time period or year span, if I'm allowed to ask?

Did we meet at San Deigo one year? I think I may have your card still.  Edited because it was a Disney exec.

I retired in 2019.

[EastEnd1]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:45 PM, paqart said:

Sometimes things don't make sense, but they are true regardless. If I hadn't been there to see it unroll in real time, I never would have expected the Bud Light marketing fiasco.

Do you think Anheuser Busch was really trying to push an agenda?  Or do you think it was more likely that they placed a small internet ad to see if it would be effective with a new audience not traditionally associated with Bud products, in an attempt to offset stagnant sales with their traditional customer base?   

Edited November 14, 2023 by EastEnd1

[Mr Sneeze]

[VintageComics]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:55 PM, EastEnd1 said:

I retired in 2019.

Ironically, it was around 2019 when things really changed in a big way, and I'm not making that up. 

There's a good Forbes article documenting the progress of the term ESG, which is the governance principle by which all large corporations invest. 

I am fairly certain that this is NOT against the rules, but if it is, I'm not doing it intentionally. I scanned the article for politics, searched key words etc and couldn't find any. 

It's strictly a discussion about economics and it shows that around 2017 things started ramping up and by 2019 the concept was growing exponentially around the globe. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2023/11/11/sage-investment-advice-from-exhausted-real-estate-billionaire-jeff-greene/?sh=3444a3ec2d73

----------------------------

This is the "outside corporate interference" I have been talking about. 

Companies are basically uniting with each other to invest under these principles in concert, and in doing so are giving each other "report card" scores to test how high they rank on the ESG scale. 

So if you, for example, cater to minorities more, whether in your staff or in your content, you get a higher ranking and the other companies will be more interested in dealing with you because of your higher score.

That is literally what the Forbes article says.

You can actually see a company's report card openly and know where they rank, and companies with low report cards struggle to do business with other companies, so everyone is trying to get the highest report card score possible by making everything as compliant to the scale as possible.

Which is WHY YOU SEE ALL OF THESE THINGS THROWN INTO MOVIES THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE. They're not doing it for entertainment. 

That's what we've been trying to tell you. 

They're LITERALLY doing it to get a better "report card" score. Only it's backfiring. They had no idea how badly it was going to backfire. 

Just like it did for BUD LIGHT. 

If I've said anything wrong here, please correct me. I'm happy to be wrong. 

[VintageComics]

On 11/13/2023 at 10:03 PM, EastEnd1 said:

Do you think Anheuser Busch was really trying to push an agenda?

Abso. Fricking. Lutely. 

Read my last reply to you before this one. 

[EastEnd1]

On 11/13/2023 at 10:08 PM, VintageComics said:

Ironically, it was around 2019 when things really changed in a big way, and I'm not making that up. 

There's a good Forbes article documenting the progress of the term ESG, which is the governance principle by which all large corporations invest. 

I am fairly certain that this is NOT against the rules, but if it is, I'm not doing it intentionally. I scanned the article for politics, searched key words etc and couldn't find any. 

It's strictly a discussion about economics and it shows that around 2017 things started ramping up and by 2019 the concept was growing exponentially around the globe. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2023/11/11/sage-investment-advice-from-exhausted-real-estate-billionaire-jeff-greene/?sh=3444a3ec2d73

----------------------------

This is the "outside corporate interference" I have been talking about. 

Companies are basically uniting with each other to invest under these principles in concert, and in doing so are giving each other "report card" scores to test how high they rank on the ESG scale. 

So if you, for example, cater to minorities more, whether in your staff or in your content, you get a higher ranking and the other companies will be more interested in dealing with you because of your higher score.

That is literally what the Forbes article says.

You can actually see a company's report card openly and know where they rank, and companies with low report cards struggle to do business with other companies, so everyone is trying to get the highest report card score possible by making everything as compliant to the scale as possible.

Which is WHY YOU SEE ALL OF THESE THINGS THROWN INTO MOVIES THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE. They're not doing it for entertainment. 

That's what we've been trying to tell you. 

They're LITERALLY doing it to get a better "report card" score. Only it's backfiring. They had no idea how badly it was going to backfire. 

Just like it did for BUD LIGHT. 

If I've said anything wrong here, please correct me. I'm happy to be wrong. 

I never saw anything like this... nor have any of my old colleagues who I still speak with regularly brought any of this up to me.  

[paqart]

On 11/13/2023 at 9:49 PM, EastEnd1 said:

Nope... I spent thirteen years as a corporate executive at one of The Mouse's chief competitors and sat in the exec and board meetings and I can assure you this is not how major multinationals operate.  You either hit your numbers or your gone... that's how it operates.

Except, apparently, at Budweiser and Disney. That said, maybe some of these execs will be fired. There have been a few already. The marketing exec at Budweiser is gone, though the people above her are still in place last time I looked. I did read about some reshuffling at Disney recently that might spell trouble for K. Kennedy. Also, DEI officers fired at multiple companies, due to a perception they were affecting profits. So maybe, the changes have already started, but they haven't hit the audiences yet.

What I loved about Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America is that every one of them was the opposite of what I normally expect from Hollywood. It is a common syndrome, where Hollywood norms are evaded somehow for the first iteration of a project, but if it is successful, it is gradually forced to conform, as happened with Home Improvement, until it loses its audience.

Speaking of exec experience in Hollywood, I wasn't an exec, but was a senior manager at Sony and Universal. From what I saw there, the goal really was to make money. However, when I spoke to other people in the biz, like the producer who helped turn my comic into a TV series, I was informed about a lot of the behind the scenes negotiations that go into making a film. Some decisions have nothing to do with quality of script or earnings potential, but personal relationships between studios, studio players, and agencies the studios like to work with.

For instance, coming from Mace Neufeld productions (the group that made the thriller No Way Out with Kevin Costner), it is impossible to shoot a script that discusses certain subjects related to China. The reason is that the studios depend on the US military for permission to shoot military bases, personnel, and vehicles. If the studio crosses any of those lines, even if that movie doesn't require military assistance, that assistance is cut off for all other productions.

There are ideological themes that are pushed and others that are repressed, for reasons unrelated to potential box office. Sometimes it is a sacrifice of something that might make money for access on multiple other projects that will also make money, as in the example I just gave. Other times, like Mel Gibson's The Passion, it is more difficult to find a financial justification for passing on a project. It is similarly difficult to explain unnecessary and objectionable content placed in recent Disney/Marvel offerings, or even one of the new Star Trek reboots. Some of this may come down to naivete. That is, the people involved were thinking, "hey, we can't get an Oscar if we don't make the cast more diverse." They do it, thinking the audience won't care. At least, won't care enough to change their buying habits.

For the most part, they got away with this in the early MCU movies because the audience didn't care that much whether Nick Fury was white or black, and were perfectly happy with a sexy Pepper Potts and Black Widow even if they did behave less respectfully towards Stark in IM II than would normally be expected. A couple of movies that were serious missteps were the all-female Ghostbusters and the Wrinkle in Time film from Disney. Those looked like propaganda, not legitimate stories. By propaganda, I mean full-on L. Ron Hubbard Battlefield Earth propaganda. I know some Scientologists who loved Battlefield Earth, because it was the realization of long desired goal. They are the only people I know who liked it. The female Ghostbusters and Wrinkle in Time definitely had an audience, but it was miniscule compared to a normal Disney audience.

Those movies could have been perceived as an aberration, or excused with some of the "I don't want to look in a mirror" excuses we're seeing for The Marvels. Given the success of Disney parks and other projects, they could afford to give everyone a second chance. The lockdown may have created a situation where a lot of movies were greenlit and produced without an opportunity to exhibit them, and thus to derive audience feedback. Maybe that contributed to the long string of duds in recent years. However, at this point is must be obvious that the extra one percent Disney wanted to add to their existing audience cost them 66% of the bigger audience. If they keep this up, there is no way I believe they are making rational business decisions. Actually, I think they passed that point with The Eternals and are well into "they need to be fired" territory.

One last example. When I lived in Hollywood, I had a friend whose mother was a very well known actress. My friend was up and coming at the time is somewhat well-known himself today. On one occasion he invited me to see him and some of his friends perform at a popular comedy club on Sunset Boulevard. This friend happened to be a Scientologist, as were all of his friends. I had seen them perform before, and they were generally quite funny. On one occasion however, things didn't work out so well. Part of their act is to ask the audience for a word that they can base a skit on. Someone in the audience called out "psychiatrist." Unfortunately, it is a tenet of Scientology that psychiatrists are very bad people. The improv troop utterly failed at turning that word into anything remotely funny. It was embarrassing. From that moment, their show died. I wanted to sneak out of the theater.

The problem was that my friend's group was so out of touch with everyone else in the audience that they didn't realize how impossible it was to do that skit from their perspective and have anyone but themselves find it entertaining. Whoever is making creative decisions at Disney right now is like that. Out of touch, and harming everything she (?) touches. 

[paqart]

On 11/13/2023 at 10:03 PM, EastEnd1 said:

Do you think Anheuser Busch was really trying to push an agenda?  Or do you think it was more likely that they placed a small internet ad to see if it would be effective with a new audience not traditionally associated with Bud products, in an attempt to offset stagnant sales with their traditional customer base?   

The person who put that campaign together was definitely pushing an agenda. If you read some of the things she wrote before it happened, you'd see that was her goal. She may have framed it as a way to expand the brand, and maybe she saw it that way, but it was also a vehicle to accomplish something else, invading the private space of AB consumers with a subversive message.