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

[VintageComics]

On 11/16/2023 at 11:44 AM, sfcityduck said:

None of this is germane to the discussion. You are just throwing mud against the wall in the hope some sticks. But it backfires. Because if the problem is a culture of sexual harassment and oppression then we should be focusing on solutions such as empowering women culturally, politically. Etc.

You're trying to identify intent by throwing darts so that you can dismiss it. It's a good thing you didn't call it a conspiracy theory.

You can insert any institution you want that is well known for abuse and misconduct ABOVE the average and my response would have been the same.

It's one of the reasons I left the religion I was raised in. It was full of abuse, assault and brainwashing. I LIVED IN IT. 

And it's the reason I'd never use them as a role model again.

It's the same with Hollywood. The entire industry was built on, through, for and because of hedonism. Talk about polishing a turd. 

EDITED TO ADD: I don't think everyone in Hollywood is corrupt much like I don't think everyone in religion is corrupt. Two of my BEST friends live in Hollywood and I'd take a bullet for them, but I do think the SYSTEM is corrupt and rife with abuse. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by VintageComics

[Buzzetta]

On 11/16/2023 at 11:51 AM, VintageComics said:

How do you know what I believe or know? 

You're saying Hollywood, the sex capital of the world, the most openly indulgent place on earth, one of the wealthiest places on earth, one of the most shallow places on earth, one of the most beautiful places on earth, a place that is literally America's hedonistic playground can be compared to working at Shell Oil?

You're comparing sexual abuse in Hollywood to Wal-Mart.

Does that make sense to anyone?

Yeah, let's continue to use Hollywood as a vehicle to empower our children. This is cultural cannibalism at it's finest. 

I said that sexual harassment and abuse goes on in all industries as are underreported across the board and not just Hollywood. 

[EastEnd1]

On 11/16/2023 at 11:13 AM, sfcityduck said:

That comic collectors are largely male is the challenge the MCU is trying to overcome by centering films on strong female characters

This is exactly right... every public company's challenge is to show constant growth to keep shareholders and Wall Street placated.  When your traditional market has reached maturity, as is the case with say young males with superhero movies, or sports fans with light beer, it's difficult to continue generating the growth that stakeholders are demanding.  So one way to overcome this is to try to secure new customers OUTSIDE your traditional base, say with females in the case of superhero movies, or the LGBTQ community in the case of beer.  These decisions are driven by the pursuit of profits and growth, not vast corporate conspiracies.  If the pursuit of that growth has an adjacency to some positive messages about the inclusivity of marginalized groups, or the empowerment of young girls, well all the better... corporations will certainly tout this as it plays well with most, especially the new customers they're targeting!  But that's just the icing on the cake... it's not the cake.  And btw, this strategy is not simple to execute and does carry risk... management spends months analyzing, testing and evaluating before green-lighting and committing resources.  It's not guaranteed to succeed, and quite often fails, so it's not done "willy-nilly".  But executed well, it can right a challenged ship.    

[VintageComics]

On 11/16/2023 at 12:01 PM, EastEnd1 said:

This is exactly right... every public company's challenge is to show constant growth to keep shareholders and Wall Street placated.  When your traditional market has reached maturity, as is the case with say young males with superhero movies, or sports fans with light beer, it's difficult to continue generating the growth that stakeholders are demanding.  So one way to overcome this is to try to secure new customers OUTSIDE your traditional base, say with females in the case of superhero movies, or the LGBTQ community in the case of beer.  These decisions are driven by the pursuit of profits and growth, not vast corporate conspiracies.  If the pursuit of that growth has an adjacency to some positive messages about the inclusivity of marginalized groups, or the empowerment of young girls, well all the better... corporations will certainly tout this as it plays well with most, especially the new customers they're targeting!  But that's just the icing on the cake... it's not the cake.  And btw, this strategy is not simple to execute and does carry risk... management spends months analyzing, testing and evaluating before green-lighting and committing resources.  It's not guaranteed to succeed, and quite often fails, so it's not done "willy-nilly".  But executed well, it can right a challenged ship.    

Thank you for adding to the convo from your experience inside the industry. It is very much appreciated by many of us.

Edited November 16, 2023 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 11/16/2023 at 11:59 AM, Buzzetta said:

I said that sexual harassment and abuse goes on in all industries as are underreported across the board and not just Hollywood. 

You also spoke about what I believe when you have no idea. 

[sfcityduck]

On 11/16/2023 at 8:38 AM, VintageComics said:

 

 

Putting women into poorly written lead roles just to attempt to appeal to women is as patronizing and demeaning as hiring someone for a job just because they're a women when they're not the best fit for the job. It's offensive and borders on sadistic. 

And pointing that out is difficult because it's not popular, but if you polled all women, I'm betting most would agree. 

 

First, everyone agrees that poor writing is a problem that needs to be avoided. But having strong female or minority characters as the lead characters is not poor writing. There are bad white male centered movies. So poor writing is not a relevant factor supporting the notion superhero movies should not center on women or minorities.

When hiring a CEO there are never really “best” candidates.  There are multiple candidates who can do the job. Hiring is ultimately just a choice between candidates who both are qualified on paper - leap of faith. 

Efforts to eliminate gender and racial  bias in hiring seek to eliminate the attitudes and blinders which cause folks to default to people who look like themselves or the people they have always had in the position, as well as conscious bigotry. It is not about hiring unqualified folks.

So your argument is based on a false assumption.

 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 11/16/2023 at 8:56 AM, VintageComics said:

You're trying to identify intent by throwing darts so that you can dismiss it. It's a good thing you didn't call it a conspiracy theory.

You can insert any institution you want that is well known for abuse and misconduct ABOVE the average and my response would have been the same.

It's one of the reasons I left the religion I was raised in. It was full of abuse, assault and brainwashing. I LIVED IN IT. 

And it's the reason I'd never use them as a role model again.

It's the same with Hollywood. The entire industry was built on, through, for and because of hedonism. Talk about polishing a turd. 

EDITED TO ADD: I don't think everyone in Hollywood is corrupt much like I don't think everyone in religion is corrupt. Two of my BEST friends live in Hollywood and I'd take a bullet for them, but I do think the SYSTEM is corrupt and rife with abuse. 

Then why do you care about the MCU and want your kids to see movies.  I think you’re both way overblown on the movie industry (of which Weinstein was an exceptionally bad example) and other industries which are just as bad or worse.

[sfcityduck]

On 11/16/2023 at 9:01 AM, EastEnd1 said:

This is exactly right

I like that you keep saying this about my posts but these concepts are well known so I am not going to pat myself on the back LOL!  I am big into reality based thinking not flights of fancy.

[paqart]

On 11/16/2023 at 11:07 AM, VintageComics said:

I'm going to say something that is very much in need of saying and it has been on my mind for a while. 

We KNOW that Hollywood is a cesspool for sexual misconduct. We KNOW that Disney has had it's share of allegations as have the rest of the industry. Weinstein was literally the tip of many icebergs. All the stories you've heard make up a small percentage. 

The stories you HAVE heard, like Cory Feldman's and those of many others have been hushed over the years were utterly BURIED to keep Hollywood looking good. 

I am really surprised at the absolute wall of support for an industry that has been literally built through exploitation as though they are the perfect teachers for the public now.

It's quite a dichotomy to watch happen in real time. 

Having lived there, though on the outskirts, I've seen enough that at least some of the gossip is true. Maybe a lot of it, but again, I was on the outskirts.

[VintageComics]

On 11/16/2023 at 12:01 PM, EastEnd1 said:

These decisions are driven by the pursuit of profits and growth, not vast corporate conspiracies. 

Can I focus on this for a second, because I really think it's the "white elephant" in the room. 

Most people "on the other side" of my points are trying to paint the opinions of people on THIS side as though we are trying to uncover a conspiracy. 

NOBODY has been talking about conspiracy.

More importantly, nobody on THIS side has been a "bad actor". All the "bad acting" seems to be coming from only one side. 

Every pot shot, accusation of intent, names and labels have without fail have come from one side of the discussion.

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

I've repeatedly stated that the ESG agenda is influencing corporate decision making. That's it.

Even Jaybuck43, who is a lawyer that specializes in entertainment and media hasn't denied it. Mr. Sneeze hasn't denied it. namisgr hasn't denied it. Buzzetta hasn't denied it. sfcityduck hasn't denied it. 

NOBODY HAS DENIED IT.

You know what's really strange?

This ESG investment vehicle is "Fuelling Wall Street" (those are the words of Bloomberg, Business Insider and Reuters News), driving 800 of the world's largest corporations and 200 world leaders to meet and discuss it regularly, so it is literally influencing every human on earth, and it's "been around for 20 years" as Jaybuck stated.

The world is surrounded by ESG ideology like oxygen, AND YET MOST HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS.

Even you were unaware, IIRC, right?

Weird that it's such a quiet topic.

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

The only point I've tried to discuss is how much the ESG agenda has influenced corporate decision making and by extension, the art form of making movies and film. 

That's it. 

I believe it's influenced everyone to a far greater degree than they realize, and more than some care to admit.

Others believe it hasn't.

This isn't conspiracy. It's just discussion about economics and influence of those economics on the art form.

So if anyone wants to discuss my points, this is it in a nutshell. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by VintageComics

[AndyFish]

I'm coming in to this late, and I've not read all 149 pages but I'm always surprised how much emotion is tied to whether or not the latest release of whatever tent pole movie series has come out is a success or not-- and that someone even pointing out they didn't like X movie invites such vitriol.  

As someone who not only collects golden age comics but works full time in the industry I get asked over and over again by casual fans in my circle what I thought of the latest Marvel, DC or Star Wars movie and they are always shocked when I say I haven't seen it and have no intention of doing so.   These movies aren't for me, and that's OK.  I can be a Batman fan and not have to jump in line to buy tickets because they've released yet another 'Batman' film.  I liked STAR WARS (1977) because I was 11 years old and it was a great summer film.  I thought EMPIRE was a let down but by that time I was aging out and could see the plot holes and the bad acting.   Don't ask me about every other Star Wars film since because I don't care for any of them, and like the Marvel and DC Movies I have seen it's because a friend dragged me with the enticement of free popcorn and soda.  

My favorite comic book movies?   Probably GHOST WORLD and MYSTERY MEN.  Far from popular choices but there they are.   One of my closest friends is a complete Marvel and Star Wars Zombie-- and he gets tickets for the latest one the second they go on sale-- I don't belittle him or think poorly just because his tastes and mine don't align.   I know when he says X was the greatest movie he ever saw I have to put it through the prism of those non-aligning tastes.

But never do I take it personally.   Stay civil folks, life is too short to be an angry keyboard warrior.

[VintageComics]

On 11/16/2023 at 12:13 PM, sfcityduck said:

Efforts to eliminate gender and racial  bias in hiring seek to eliminate the attitudes and blinders which cause folks to default to people who look like themselves or the people they have always had in the position, as well as conscious bigotry. It is not about hiring unqualified folks.

If you hire based on math vs merit, you are inadvertently hiring unqualified people over qualified people because merit is no longer the only criteria.

This actually is borne out with scientific studies in egalitarianism in some of the countries with the greatest egalitarian laws like Scandinavia and other parts of Europe (and I think Paqart can speak well to this, because he spent a lot of time studying and living in Europe).

But I will say that this isn't a discussion point for this thread, or this forum. I simply brought it up as a supporting point to my greater point that putting anyone into a role that isn't well suited for them, simply to represent them is counter productive to the greater cause. 

It literally puts a focus on the flaws in the end product rather than on the message they're trying to convey. It may not be evident to everyone, but this is actually what the scientific literature supports. 

And quite frankly, what viewers have been saying about the MCU for a few years now. 

 

[jaybuck43]

On 11/16/2023 at 11:38 AM, VintageComics said:

Are you aware that @jaybuck43 is an expert in the field we're discussing?

And that he produced that graph originally as a rebuttal to me?

And that I asked Jaybuck for MORE DATA to better understand the graph?

And that NOBODY so far has produced more data but lots of replies?

I think your post is better directed to the person who introduced the graph in the first place and not to me, right?

 

You might be the only person in this entire thread that is asking this question and the question doesn't make sense in the context of the discussion. 

Follow me...

We WERE DISCUSSING why Marvels has done poorly. 

Many said it was "poor writing", "fatigue", "terrible villains" and whatever else.

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 in the same way ALL CORPORATIONS are being influenced to hire more diverse staff. I mean, the evidence is overwhelming. You quite LITERALLY HAVE LAWS stating this (affirmative action) and those laws have extended into corporate ideologies forming their art and movies. 

I simply stated that by putting MORE women into tights, which is Marvel / Disney has done, HAS MISSED THE MARK and women aren't as interested as Disney thought they were. 

The question YOU are asking above PROVES my point. It's not whether they are in the lead role or not, it's whether that lead role is well written TO APPEAL TO WOMEN. 

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

Women OUT of tights do far better in appealing to women than women in tights. That's the entire premise of my point. 

Again, I will point to Evey in V for Vendetta, which are 2 of my 3 daughter's favorite films. 

Bridges of Madison County (one of my favorite films) where Meryl Streep is the obvious hero in the movie, QUITE LITERALLY OVERSHADOWING ONE OF THE GREATEST ROLE MODELS IN THE HISTORY OF MOVIES - Clint Eastwood. 

Wonder Woman I'd have to watch again ( really dislike DC movies so I have a hard time with most of them) but I think they did a reasonable job of placing her into a role in a way that was believable and relatable to SOME women in B v S - she played the part of the powerful CEO / Superhero - almost like a counterpoint to Tony Stark in the MCU.

 

Putting women into poorly written lead roles just to attempt to appeal to women is as patronizing and demeaning as hiring someone for a job just because they're a women when they're not the best fit for the job. It's offensive and borders on sadistic. 

And pointing that out is difficult because it's not popular, but if you polled all women, I'm betting most would agree. 

 

Your numbers are off a bit, it's not 20-25%.  Weighted, it would be about a 12-14% difference.  So your average theater of 100 people, would mean you're looking at  62 males 38 females (roughly).

Obviously I don't have any data on "dragged to films".  Though I am tempted to have a survey designed to do that.  What I do have is attitude to seeing these films broken down by Gender.

So you do see that women do go see superhero films even though they don't enjoy them, but so do males.  Women just tend to do it at a slightly higher rate.  But there is still a high percentage of women, 45% to be exact, who have a good interest in seeing these films.  So going back to our hypothetical example of 100 persons in a theater, of the 38 women, maybe about 5 are dragged there against there will, while 4 men were done similarly, basically negating the issue of who was or wasn't dragged).  

What is also VERY important, is the percentage of women who have NO OPINION.  12% of female respondents don't know or have no option, which means they can be won over by advertising/a good attractive story.  Men on the other hand either really want to go or really don't want to go, they're not likely to be swayed.

Then there is the even more important question to ask.  Who is Disney trying to attract?  Your predominant movie going audience are young adults (12-30) so that's why Disney is going to care most about, and their attitudes. Gen Z and Millenials are your most interested generations while ALSO being the most likely to attend a film in general.  Disney in turn is going to tailor the films to suit their sensibilities.  Gen Z and millennials care more about representation, female empowerment etc. then GenX/Baby Boomers.  So again, no real surprise here.

[paqart]

On 11/16/2023 at 11:44 AM, sfcityduck said:

Squirrels. 

We have all heard of the casting couch. But we also have all heard and seen or heard of sexual harassment in our own industries. It is indemic. It was mostly a product of male privilege / toxic masculinity / power trips etc. (pick your terms) which are not unique to Hollywood.

Weinstein was mostly not a Disney problem. Read the filings in the NY venues suits against Weinstein if you want details.

None of this is germane to the discussion. You are just throwing mud against the wall in the hope some sticks. But it backfires. Because if the problem is a culture of sexual harassment and oppression then we should be focusing on solutions such as empowering women culturally, politically. Etc.

At this point, I believe the "culture of sexual harrassment" is exaggerated. It may be found more often in Hollywood, New York, San Francisco,and similar places, but in other places, it is much rarer. Even in Hollywood, there are quite a few well-known players who absolutely reject the Weinsteins of the world. These men and women do what they can to stop mistreatment of others if it comes to their attention and they are in a position to do something about it. The Weinsteins (and worse, the Bill Cosbys) exist, but their numbers are not as large as purported. They get outsize coverage because of the scandalous nature of their behavior and their rarefied positions (note the word "rarefied") give them opportunities that others thankfully don't have.

A couple levels lower and you have colleagues trying to date each other at the office. I've seen that at a couple places I worked at, but as far as I could tell, the people involved wanted to date each other. I have no idea how many unsuccessful and unwanted attempts were made because my time was spent working or with my family, not socializing with colleagues. The only exception is racquetball, which I played often with a couple of my fellow animators on Space Jam. All three of us were married, so none of us were a part of the dating scene.

[manetteska]

I didn't know this is where the fun is at.

I have LOGICAL questions which need answering and won't stop until they are answered:

• Does Roy have a day job?
• This is the "reserved" version of Roy?
• There's a PURGE-based theme park?
• Isn't The Villages the sex capital of the world?

[VintageComics]

On 11/16/2023 at 12:40 PM, paqart said:

On 11/16/2023 at 11:44 AM, sfcityduck said:

Squirrels. 

We have all heard of the casting couch. But we also have all heard and seen or heard of sexual harassment in our own industries. It is indemic. It was mostly a product of male privilege / toxic masculinity / power trips etc. (pick your terms) which are not unique to Hollywood.

Weinstein was mostly not a Disney problem. Read the filings in the NY venues suits against Weinstein if you want details.

None of this is germane to the discussion. You are just throwing mud against the wall in the hope some sticks. But it backfires. Because if the problem is a culture of sexual harassment and oppression then we should be focusing on solutions such as empowering women culturally, politically. Etc.

At this point, I believe the "culture of sexual harrassment" is exaggerated. It may be found more often in Hollywood, New York, San Francisco,and similar places, but in other places, it is much rarer. Even in Hollywood, there are quite a few well-known players who absolutely reject the Weinsteins of the world. These men and women do what they can to stop mistreatment of others if it comes to their attention and they are in a position to do something about it. The Weinsteins (and worse, the Bill Cosbys) exist, but their numbers are not as large as purported. They get outsize coverage because of the scandalous nature of their behavior and their rarefied positions (note the word "rarefied") give them opportunities that others thankfully don't have.

A couple levels lower and you have colleagues trying to date each other at the office. I've seen that at a couple places I worked at, but as far as I could tell, the people involved wanted to date each other. I have no idea how many unsuccessful and unwanted attempts were made because my time was spent working or with my family, not socializing with colleagues. The only exception is racquetball, which I played often with a couple of my fellow animators on Space Jam. All three of us were married, so none of us were a part of the dating scene.

I genuinely don't want to continue to derail the topic to talk about sex but I've travelled extensively to every major US city many times over for comic cons, so I was speaking not only from extensive personal experiences but also from insight gained from spending time in these places and developing deep, lasting relationships with people in those places.

I also tend to be a bit of a historian on Hollywood due to my love for Vintage things and Vintage culture, hence the name. 

Sex is very much more "in your face" there than in any other city I've been to, whether it's Seattle,Chicago, NYC. 

Go to ANY nightclub, bougie dinner place or bar and you'll see what I mean. Most "fun" places look like a watered down version of a Great Gatsby or Wolf Of Wall Street movie, quite literally and after last call? Forget about it. Everyone is high and drunk and looking for where to go next. 

"Boys Town" is the LGBTQ's nickname for the area on Santa Monica Blvd in West Hollywood and it's one "in your face", unpretentious example. It's the largest LGBBTQ community in the US and walking down the street is an experience, especially at night.

West Hollywood in general though, is highly sexualized and is quite literally a world to itself. It's the epicentre of debauchery and in my opinion only rivalled by Vegas or Miami which tie for 2nd IMO.

Just walk the streets of West Hollywood one night on a weekend and everyone will see what I mean. 

The reason? The most "attractive" people in the world move there to make it in entertainment, so is it any wonder that their looks become the vehicles to success? It's literally supermodel central, every day, all day.

OK, carry on. 

 

[jaybuck43]

On 11/16/2023 at 12:26 PM, VintageComics said:

Can I focus on this for a second, because I really think it's the "white elephant" in the room. 

Most people "on the other side" of my points are trying to paint the opinions of people on THIS side as though we are trying to uncover a conspiracy. 

NOBODY has been talking about conspiracy.

More importantly, nobody on THIS side has been a "bad actor". All the "bad acting" seems to be coming from only one side. 

Every pot shot, accusation of intent, names and labels have without fail have come from one side of the discussion.

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

I've repeatedly stated that the ESG agenda is influencing corporate decision making. That's it.

Even Jaybuck43, who is a lawyer that specializes in entertainment and media hasn't denied it. Mr. Sneeze hasn't denied it. namisgr hasn't denied it. Buzzetta hasn't denied it. sfcityduck hasn't denied it. 

NOBODY HAS DENIED IT.

You know what's really strange?

This ESG investment vehicle is "Fuelling Wall Street" (those are the words of Bloomberg, Business Insider and Reuters News), driving 800 of the world's largest corporations and 200 world leaders to meet and discuss it regularly, so it is literally influencing every human on earth, and it's "been around for 20 years" as Jaybuck stated.

The world is surrounded by ESG ideology like oxygen, AND YET MOST HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT IS.

Even you were unaware, IIRC, right?

Weird that it's such a quiet topic.

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

The only point I've tried to discuss is how much the ESG agenda has influenced corporate decision making and by extension, the art form of making movies and film. 

That's it. 

I believe it's influenced everyone to a far greater degree than they realize, and more than some care to admit.

Others believe it hasn't.

This isn't conspiracy. It's just discussion about economics and influence of those economics on the art form.

So if anyone wants to discuss my points, this is it in a nutshell. 

ESG is not an investment vehicle.  It's an investment strategy.  The concept behind ESG scores is that investors are more likely to get a better return on investment from companies who have embraced long term issues and planned for them.  For instance Apple relies heavily on Rare Earth for its iPhones, whose sales make up 52% of their revenue.  70% of rare earth comes from China.  This means that Apple is heavily reliant on China and must maintain good relations to ensure continued delivery.  How do you reflect this issue (and how Apple deals with it) in their annual report?  How can investors know about this?  So you create a score based off some metric you design.  OK Apple has a bunch of former trade officials working for them in a government relations department?  They get an "A".  Samsung doesn't?  They get an "F".   Microsoft (they still make phones right?) has a government relations departments but fully staffed by Yale graduates?  "C".  Take all the various grades you've assigned and it generates a score.  Voila.  ESG.  Theoretically (and so far in practice) a company with a higher ESG score SHOULD be a better investment long term, since they're clearly more risk adverse.  

But... it's chicken and the egg.  Which came first?  The argument is that ESG leads to changes in policies, when in actuality it's more likely that ESGs are REFLECTING changes in policies.  To whit.  As I said, it's about grading companies planned response to long term issues.  So for instance, when #MeToo started, and there was a lot of talk about issues in the boardroom and lack of representation, the ISSUE becomes "hey companies might get bad PR for not having females, do you have a plan to address that?" ESG then kicks in and says "O, Disney has a plan for that, they get an A, Comcast doesn't have a plan for that they get an F".  It's not ESG pushing this, but rather reflecting issues in society.  

[VintageComics]

On 11/16/2023 at 12:37 PM, jaybuck43 said:

Your numbers are off a bit, it's not 20-25%.  Weighted, it would be about a 12-14% difference.  So your average theater of 100 people, would mean you're looking at  62 males 38 females (roughly).

Obviously I don't have any data on "dragged to films".  Though I am tempted to have a survey designed to do that.  What I do have is attitude to seeing these films broken down by Gender.

So you do see that women do go see superhero films even though they don't enjoy them, but so do males.  Women just tend to do it at a slightly higher rate.  But there is still a high percentage of women, 45% to be exact, who have a good interest in seeing these films.  So going back to our hypothetical example of 100 persons in a theater, of the 38 women, maybe about 5 are dragged there against there will, while 4 men were done similarly, basically negating the issue of who was or wasn't dragged).  

What is also VERY important, is the percentage of women who have NO OPINION.  12% of female respondents don't know or have no option, which means they can be won over by advertising/a good attractive story.  Men on the other hand either really want to go or really don't want to go, they're not likely to be swayed.

Then there is the even more important question to ask.  Who is Disney trying to attract?  Your predominant movie going audience are young adults (12-30) so that's why Disney is going to care most about, and their attitudes. Gen Z and Millenials are your most interested generations while ALSO being the most likely to attend a film in general.  Disney in turn is going to tailor the films to suit their sensibilities.  Gen Z and millennials care more about representation, female empowerment etc. then GenX/Baby Boomers.  So again, no real surprise here.

Thank you! This is great info.

I'm going to digest everything you've shared and reply later this afternoon! 

But thank you for sharing. 

[CAHokie]

On 11/16/2023 at 12:40 PM, paqart said:

colleagues. The only exception is racquetball, which I played often with a couple of my fellow animators on Space Jam.

The real Space Jam right, not the one with LeBron? 

[jaybuck43]

On 11/16/2023 at 1:01 PM, CAHokie said:

The real Space Jam right, not the one with LeBron? 

There has only ever been one Space Jam.  LeBron doesn't act in movies.