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

[sfcityduck]

On 11/16/2023 at 10:37 AM, VintageComics said:

Affirmative action was just that. It is choosing people from groups based on math and not merit. 

The problem with this sort of strategy is the same with any other flawed strategy, it pretends to address root problems but only addresses symptoms. 

Without addressing symptoms, you eventually run out of bandages and the patient suffers a worse death than if you'd addressed the symptom in the first place. 

 And you just keep adding more unnecessary insults. 

No. This comment is historically incorrect. Affirmative Action was developed as a legal remedy to combat systemic institutional racism largely in the educational context. Generations of systemic generational racism. It was intended to offer injunctive relief for the discrimination which denied generations of qualified candidates opportunity, pushing down minority communities, by giving minorities the opportunity to obtain opportunities and credentials they otherwise would not have absent that relief. Credentials and opportunities which are essential in this country to economic opportunity.

Let's face it, the US was founded on a bedrock of racism which saw some people as "free and full citizens" and others not because of their race. We thought we solved that problem when the forces of freedom won the Civil War. But that was very short victory as southern states adopted Jim Crow laws and continued to deny that blacks were entitled to full rights. This perpetuated and spread racist attitudes. It was not until Brown v. Board of education in the 1950s and the subsequent courts order implementing Affirmative Action remedies that the problem of discrimination in education began to be redressed. It was a successful remedy in that it did create more opportunity and eroded the foundation that supported racist attitudes.

In fact, it was so successful, that the concept was imported into other contexts. Probably too broadly in practice for some contexts. It is not an inherently flawed concept. Quite the contrary when properly applied. 

But AA has zero to do with corporate officer hiring.

[sfcityduck]

On 11/16/2023 at 10:33 AM, VintageComics said:

so where did I portray ESG as something it isn't?

By claiming it is a new concept and Blackrock et al are controlling the economic world, and by extension the whole world, through that concept. As to the MCU, you contend it has destroyed the marketability of Disney's movies.

In reality, its not new or controlling. It has some influences, but not to the degree you claim and not with the negative consequences you are pushing.

[jaybuck43]

On 11/16/2023 at 1:39 PM, skypinkblu said:

If it's a dating app, I think they are probably embellishing while fishing for dates.

Speaking as one of the female majority here, I've never needed a male to make me feel like a woman..never dreamt about a strong male. Except for one time when I was 5 and I found out boys could write in the snow and I could not, I've never thought of males as anything other than equals. 

I'm waiting to see the Marvels till they are on TV, main reason is, despite trying to watch Captain Marvel twice, my favorite character was the Cat.

 

You can write in the snow too sha, just requires either some really good hip movement... or a funnel.  

[sfcityduck]

On 11/16/2023 at 10:03 AM, paqart said:

There is the problem with the idea that female leads in superhero movies leads to female backside in theater seats. Maybe women aren't interested in that kind of movie.

 

Given the corporate fixation on profits, I believe we can safely assume that the data shows that they are more interested in those kind of movies. Anecdotally, Barbie certainly suggests they would be also. But we are not talking all women, so the anecdotes we all voice are not real helpful. There are always counter anecdotes.

[Mystafo]

On 11/16/2023 at 12:59 PM, pemart1966 said:

but bears repeating for a third time

Welp, now you gone and done it...

[jaybuck43]

On 11/16/2023 at 2:06 PM, VintageComics said:

I'm VERY interested to know more about this data.

In my experience, because I travel a lot I find dating apps and their demographics vary greatly city to city. 

Do you have any insights to share?

And what do you mean about "youth"? Which age groups?

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

My "logic" comes from CONVERSATIONS I HAVE HAD WITH WOMEN I'VE EITHER BEEN MARRIED TO OR DATED OR HAVE BEEN A FATHER TO or total strangers I have zero interest in other than the conversation (and I've probably had 100s of convos at this point on the topic). Not an expert by any means but pretty well versed in the topic and at LEAST above average. 

Where does your logic on the topic come from? Your laptop, your cell phone or your personal experiences?

 

 

Seems about 10% of US population uses dating apps. (this would include married people using apps for cheating purposes, but my 10% excludes under 18s because yea, that's probably a federal crime.

[VintageComics]

On 11/16/2023 at 2:22 PM, sfcityduck said:

By claiming it is a new concept

Can you please quote where I said that, rather than just mischaracterize what I said? I've asked you to do this repeatedly.

On 11/16/2023 at 2:22 PM, sfcityduck said:

Blackrock et al are controlling the economic world

I said Blackrock controls nearly $10Trillion in assets, in effect "controlling the world" which was an exaggeration on my part to prove a point. They have their fingers in EVERYTHING. 

I didn't literally mean Larry Fink CEO of Blackrock has puppet strings holding each and very one of us.

The US GDP is somewhere over $20 Trillion.

If I said "The US controls the world." most would agree. 

That doesn't literally mean that the US has a string tied to each and every one of us. 

You need to be able to understand when someone is being literal and when they aren't and it's obvious from your assinuations and responses that you watch a lot of Legacy media and get your talking points from there, because you interjecting things I'm not saying that only come from there. 

The rest was meant to be discussion and you've turned it into politics, conspiracy theory and personal attacks. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by VintageComics

[jaybuck43]

On 11/16/2023 at 2:25 PM, sfcityduck said:

Given the corporate fixation on profits, I believe we can safely assume that the data shows that they are more interested in those kind of movies. Anecdotally, Barbie certainly suggests they would be also. But we are not talking all women, so the anecdotes we all voice are not real helpful. There are always counter anecdotes.

Found this to be interesting.  Here are the gender breakdowns of 4 ticket going audiences in superhero films., which is basically on point with the numbers I put up in a previous post (i.e. a theoretical 100 person theater would be 62/38 male/female).  In actuality, for these 4 films it was closer to 60/40.

[VintageComics]

On 11/16/2023 at 2:28 PM, jaybuck43 said:

Seems about 10% of US population uses dating apps. (this would include married people using apps for cheating purposes, but my 10% excludes under 18s because yea, that's probably a federal crime.

How many SINGLE PEOPLE use dating apps would be the relevant demographics to this discussion. 

My point, if it was missed, BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT DATING APPS BUT ABOUT WHAT A PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN ACTUALLY WANT, was to bring in real world experience and show that MOST of the women that I have met either randomly or on apps, or interacted with without intent to date overwhelmingly disagree with the opposing male opinions in this thread. That's it. 

Now I realize there's going to be a lot of confirmation bias to my experiences, but when 100s of women are telling me they are angry at people like those in this thread, it's not just me and the people trying to discredit me are doing a disservice to the same people they are trying to support. That's called dissonance. 

Why? Likely because I'm the messenger, I'm very polarizing, I've offended a few people with my position.

So you know what I can do for you all? I can video tape them telling you how they feel. Would everyone like that? '

By extension, and this has become very evident with sfcityduck is that most people are listening to what the media tells everyone they want and people and pushing it onto people who don't want it. 

The media is just as off base right now as Kevin Feige was off base over the last 3-4 years. They have worked in tandem and the opposition is working in tandem, with the proof being PROFIT and ECONOMIC VIABILITY and GROWTH. 

If the media was accurately displaying what society wanted, everyone would be focusing on the root problems rather than the symptoms, but the media would rather CREATE root problems. Instead, the media is acting as a shield to separate what people want from those who are pushing what they think we want. 

And that is more apparent every day. 

 

Edited November 16, 2023 by VintageComics

[Prince Namor]

On 11/16/2023 at 11:07 PM, 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. 

You talk about other people changing lanes... Jimminy H Christ on a popsicle stick, you just jumped four lanes and bounced off the curb. 

Edited November 16, 2023 by Prince Namor

[sfcityduck]

On 11/16/2023 at 10:03 AM, paqart said:

The waken American usage of ethnic minorities is, in her opinion, insulting.

Was she good with Charlie Chan? Have you asked her how she feels about "Chop Chop" from Blackhawk? What about the "Dragon Lady" from Terry and the Pirates? Lots of other Chinese caricatures and stereotypes in US comics and movies from the start.   So calling the stereotyping of minorities a "waken American usage," is just plain wrong. It's just the continued influence of our racist and bigoted past. Did she like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? 

But as a counter-anecdote, I know many Americans of Asian descent who are really happy to see folks who share their heritage being represented in movies, even ones titled "Crazy Rich Asians."

On 11/16/2023 at 10:03 AM, paqart said:

 

I have run into a number of women who also find the portrayal of women in movies as not only offensive, but a deliberate slight to them because they have chosen to raise a family. They don't want to see another wealthy sexy single woman in a tight skirt bossing around groveling men as she shuffles through her rolodex of one night stands. To them, that is an empty and unappealing life. Nor do they find it amusing to watch timorous men obey the commands of a female CEO in a Chanel pant suit. That kind of role-reversal is not, in many cases, a true role reversal.

 

The women I know who are raising families do not feel diminished by the fact that there are successful women made a different choice.  I believe they are glad that the choices are available. 

I certainly know many feminists who are very unhappy with Hollywood's fixation on sexy women actresses and the reduction of women to sex objects. But I've never heard anyone who elected to be a stay at home mom complain it is slight on staying at home. The movies that start with a single woman unsatisfied with her love life usually end with a marriage proposal and a desire to raise family. Just watch Hallmark.

I certainly am well aware of many "tough" female CEOs who wear their expensive clothing (including GASP! a pant suit). And sadly there are lots of underlings in corporate America who act timorous towards the CEO. Its called group think and too common. So I'm not sure why that's offensive. By definition, for a woman to make the journey from top to bottom in a male dominated world can lead to an attitude that some might find "tough" - look at Nancy Pelosi and Nicki Haley in politics - but most women I know find that inspirational. Again, the idea you have choices and can be who you want to be is powerfully positive.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 11/16/2023 at 11:34 AM, VintageComics said:

Can you please quote where I said that, rather than just mischaracterize what I said?

 

That was no mischaracterization. Look up thread. You post too much for me to waste my time looking. Just look for the quotes where you relayed the supposed history of ESG, discussed Blackrock, and talked about the timelines of ESG's "peak." I'm sure your memory will be refreshed.

[Prince Namor]

On 11/16/2023 at 11:32 PM, sfcityduck said:

Your questions are not logical because they identify only the challenge faced by the MCU not the opportunity it is pursuing.

The questions you should be asking are:

Are there more women than men in the domestic market? 

What attributes attract women to superhero movies (or sports if you think it relevant)?

What can a movie maker do to increase the appeal of a superhero movie to women?

THEN ask yourself the same question about domestic moviegoers of Asian ethnicity, male and female, and you will begin to understand why the MCU has elected to center their movies around more than white men.

Yep, this is exactly how movie studios (and any business) approaches it, and not the reasons (agendas) that 'some people' think.

You have a product and you want to make it accessible to sell it to as MANY people as you can.

Plain and simple as that. 

[jaybuck43]

On 11/16/2023 at 2:47 PM, sfcityduck said:

I certainly know many feminists who are very unhappy with Hollywood's fixation on sexy women actresses and the reduction of women to sex objects. But I've never heard anyone who elected to be a stay at home mom complain it is slight on staying at home. The movies that start with a single woman unsatisfied with her love life usually end with a marriage proposal and a desire to raise family. Just watch Hallmark.

I certainly am well aware of many "tough" female CEOs who wear their expensive clothing (including GASP! a pant suit). And sadly there are lots of underlings in corporate America who act timorous towards the CEO. Its called group think and too common. So I'm not sure why that's offensive. By definition, for a woman to make the journey from top to bottom in a male dominated world can lead to an attitude that some might find "tough" - look at Nancy Pelosi and Nicki Haley in politics - but most women I know find that inspirational. Again, the idea you have choices and can be who you want to be is powerfully positive.

 

Where I think some are coming from on this aspect are the fact that some feminists are judgmental/condescending about people who WANT to live a lifestyle seen as "traditional" (i.e. being a stay at home mom).  Take a look at Rachel Zegler's comments about Snow White.  Nothing wrong with saying women shouldn't HAVE to depend on a man/believe in their true love etc.  There is something wrong with not wanting people to be like that.  Allow for choice, 

[sfcityduck]

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

 

By extension, and this has become very evident with sfcityduck is that most people are listening to what the media tells everyone they want and people and pushing it onto people who don't want it. 

 

The above is what we call an ad hominem logical fallacy. A personal attack not an argument.

It's also wrong, unevidenced, and contrary to what you've read here. You are lauding at least one poster for being such a great source of information who keeps telling you that my recitals of corporate decision making are "exactly right."

 

[Prince Namor]

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

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

+100

And it's done to people who have little power (or money) to speak out and defend themselves and thus mostly get ignored and overcome by it. 

[drotto]

On 11/15/2023 at 6:06 PM, jaybuck43 said:

The first major announcements that Disney screwed up was when they fired Chapick, brought back iger, realized streaming was a bad bet, started trying to license to Netflix again, and fired a ton of people.  Cutting their films is maybe 8th on the list?

Iger never really left.  He was kept on in an advisory position, was still on the board, and never even vacated his office. Most of the issues happening now started under Iger and Chapick inherited them.  The Marvels was greenlit under Iger.  Disney + was Iger's baby.  The awful overpayment for FOX was all Iger.

 

A big potion of the mess Iger must now deal with is his own fualt.

[Prince Namor]

On 11/17/2023 at 12:26 AM, VintageComics said:

 

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

 

Explain to everyone what you think it is. 

[jaybuck43]

On 11/16/2023 at 2:58 PM, drotto said:

Iger never really left.  He was kept on in an advisory position, was still on the board, and never even vacated his office. Most of the issues happening now started under Iger and Chapick inherited them.  The Marvels was greenlit under Iger.  Disney + was Iger's baby.  The awful overpayment for FOX was all Iger.

 

A big potion of the mess Iger must now deal with is his own fualt.

He stayed on as Executive Chairman, part of why he didn't vacate his office. In his mind, Chapick was running the day to day while he oversaw the company.  But, since he was still "there" he wanted to retain his office.  Disney+ was absolutely iger's baby.  Same with fox (I don't think he overpaid to be honest).  The Marvel's was greenlit by Iger in principle (i.e. lets do a sequel) but I mean thats a no brainer when a film does 1.138 billion global box.  Official development was done entirely under Chapek.  

[sfcityduck]

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

 

My point, if it was missed, BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION IS NOT ABOUT DATING APPS BUT ABOUT WHAT A PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN ACTUALLY WANT, was to bring in real world experience and show that MOST of the women that I have met either randomly or on apps, or interacted with without intent to date overwhelmingly disagree with the opposing male opinions in this thread. That's it. 

 

We all have real world experience. Mine is radically different than yours with dating apps as I've been married for almost 30 years. The women I interact with are never trying to impress me romantically. They are my colleagues, clients, friends, acquaintances, wives of friends, parents of my kids friends, etc. And while there is a diversity of social and political views and what is their most satisfying life path, I don't know any who disagree with the notion that its ok to have movies centered on strong female characters, including superhero movies.