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

[VintageComics]

On 11/9/2023 at 5:57 PM, jsilverjanet said:

after seeing what happens in the mid credits and credits scene, i think I'm curious about where this is going

there maybe some hope for the mcu

Would you mind putting it into crayon for me (in spoilers or via PM)?

I likely won't see this movie and I'm dying to know.

 

[Grendel72]

On 11/10/2023 at 5:01 AM, jcjames said:

 

I get the same repulsion from anything featuring Kevin Costner,  

Even Dances with Wolves ? 

[Bosco685]

On 11/9/2023 at 6:12 PM, Buzzetta said:

 I love Pete.  (Side note, I know that Pete is essentially playing himself in The King of Staten Island but it was a generally good movie from start to finish.)

 

I was born and raised on Staten Island. I had fun with this movie. So much of the drifting souls there just trying to find themselves.

[batmiesta]

On 11/9/2023 at 6:16 AM, godzilla43 said:

Mostly that is just something I made up. So who knows.

Probably a lot better than the actual thing.

[jcjames]

On 11/9/2023 at 4:22 PM, Grendel72 said:

Even Dances with Wolves ? 

Yep. It's unexplainable. I just can't stand seeing him on the screen. Great movie though. Except for him. 

[VintageComics]

On 11/9/2023 at 6:02 PM, Buzzetta said:

I found Civil War I to be thought provoking and a nice reprieve from the constant villain of the day, the soap opera, or how two heroes can learn to work together to defeat the common threat.  Civil War felt more like a Star Trek storyline to be honest.

Yep. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think this really nails it. It really did. Spock vs Kirk. 

On 11/9/2023 at 6:02 PM, Buzzetta said:

I do believe you are overthinking it.  

I'd be willing to admit I overthought it if there wasn't more to the story or if Disney didn't already have a pattern of behavior as a company.

But when a company has a market cap that falls between the annual GDP of some European countries (Disney has a market cap of $150 Billion, Slovakia has an annual GDP of about $130 Billion and Hungary has a market cap of around $200 Billion) it's tough to ignore how powerful and in turn how influential they are. 

To put it into perspective, you basically have an "entertainment company" that has the bargaining power and influence of the countries that the people viewing their movies live in. 

I've been actually been genuinely worried about Hollywood since maybe the mid 90s so this isn't some new trend but 30 years ago Disney was JUST an entertainment company. They're not just an entertainment company now. They're an influencer and that is an entirely different animal. How they got there from here is probably the most interesting part of the discussion.

BTW. Not mine but cool and totally relevant. 

Edited November 9, 2023 by VintageComics

[namisgr]

On 11/9/2023 at 6:22 PM, Grendel72 said:

Even Dances with Wolves ? 

And Bull Durham?  

[Buzzetta]

On 11/9/2023 at 6:29 PM, VintageComics said:

Yep. I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think this really nails it. It really did. Spock vs Kirk. 

I'd be willing to admit I overthought it if there wasn't more to the story or if Disney didn't already have a pattern of behavior as a company.

But when a company has a market cap that falls between the annual GDP of some European countries (Disney has a market cap of $150 Billion, Slovakia has an annual GDP of about $130 Billion and Hungary has a market cap of around $200 Billion) it's tough to ignore how powerful and in turn how influential they are. 

To put it into perspective, you basically have an "entertainment company" that has the bargaining power and influence of the countries that the people viewing their movies live in. 

I've been actually been genuinely worried about Hollywood since maybe the mid 90s so this isn't some new trend but 30 years ago Disney was JUST an entertainment company. They're not just an entertainment company now. They're an influencer and that is an entirely different animal. How they got there from here is probably the most interesting part of the discussion.

BTW. Not mine but cool and totally relevant. 

Every company has been an influencer.  

Disney has been offering messages since it's inception.  You just most likely agreed with the message.   Every fairy tale that the earlier films were based on were constructed around a moral to the story. 

The rare exception is Fantasia and even in that there were stories to be told. 

[VintageComics]

On 11/9/2023 at 6:05 PM, namisgr said:

On 11/9/2023 at 6:00 PM, paqart said:

"Messaging that annoys me". Happy?

Just so long as you can understand the message of a 'Prince Charming' annoys others.

I think it's a matter of who gets annoyed and how best to deal with it. 

For example, if the majority are annoyed it's bad business and judging by Disney's numbers the majority ARE annoyed. Math doesn't lie.

But if a minority of people are annoyed, well that's much more difficult to figure out how to deal with. 

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

Let me give you an example. I've mentioned this only once before on this forum, but as a neurologist you'll understand it well. 

I have an actual, specific "phobia" that is in some ways so debilitating it actually affects how I make my decisions. It affects how I navigate my social life, my relationships, being in public. Literally EVERY ASPECT OF MY LIFE is affected, it never goes away (quite literally), it's at the forefront of my mind at all times and it can make or break certain situations for me. I can't even watch a movie peacefully because of it. 

I've had it since the day I was born. It's not "learned" or "nurture". It's genetic but I never talk about it. 

This phobia affects less than 0.0005% of the population. Steve jobs had it. Another boardie on here has it because we've discussed it. It is a violent, internal disgust reaction toward a certain thing that has ruled by life for over 50 years. 

Should I start shouting it out on the hilltops and forcing Disney to incorporate this into movies? Should I be forcing everyone to conform to my own specific field of interest so that I can feel better?

If I was self entitled and myopic I'd do just that. 

But I LONG ago accepted this as my lot in life, and have managed it to the point where I can function normally and not only exist but thrive despite it being so debilitating. 

In fact, I've managed to face it to such a degree that even though it bothers me greatly, I can literally face it head on and not back down. 

Now imagine if someone catered to my little phobia and changed the world to make me feel better? The world would be a disaster, I would be a disaster and society would be a disaster. 

In this day and age I actually COULD push my agenda through, force people to back down and change and I would probably receive resounding support if I cried loud and long enough, but I'd actually be doing a disservice TO MYSELF by doing that because I'd never grow. 

Instead, I chose to deal with it privately and flourish despite it. 

 

So the real question is, where is the line drawn between what an individual wants and what is best for an industry, society or a culture?

We've engineered a culture where everyone can just shout out what their demands are and they expect to receive them. 

And we've also engineered a culture where if anyone tries to reasonable discuss it, they're shut down. 

Both adjustments are WRONG and they are both stemmed in an unbelievable amount of self entitlement that is so off the charts, we need a new universe to make that graph fit into this reality. 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by VintageComics

[Buzzetta]

On 11/9/2023 at 6:23 PM, Bosco685 said:

I was born and raised on Staten Island. I had fun with this movie. So much of the drifting souls there just trying to find themselves.

Agreed, especially after 9/11...

You've seen the movie so this is really for those that have not...

I don't consider the movie exploitive to the 9/11 experience nor that it benefitted from tugging at the 9/11 heart strings.  Pete Davidson is essentially playing himself growing up on Staten Island after losing his firefighter father in real life and as the character in the movie.  Apatow explored a lot of coping mechanisms surrounding the characters dealing in the aftermath of that experience and explored the new territory that these people had to come to grips with that they never envisioned for themselves.  When Pete's mother starts to date again, the reactions and experiences were real.  Here was a woman who did not find herself in the dating pool again through divorce but because of violent murderous death.  The undertones of guilt and coping while maintaining the rigors of raising a family were very real in that situation.  Pete is basically showing everyone what his real life was like after his dad passed away and that experience was very comparative to what many families were going through at the time.

Plus... I love the song that took us to the credits... 

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by Buzzetta

[VintageComics]

On 11/9/2023 at 6:39 PM, Buzzetta said:

Every company has been an influencer.  

You're kind of sidestepping the main point of this discussion. 

Entertainment used to be the main goal of an entertainment company, but when influencing becomes the goal over the entertainment, that's no longer the same thing and I think it's pretty clear that's what's happening. 

And you don't even have to accept my opinion. It's the opinions of others, who WANT and are pushing for the influencing and have been vocal about it in this very thread that are confirming it, so it's not even a disputed opinion.

It's actually agreed upon BY BOTH SIDES. 

So that's a checkmate, right?

 

 

[VintageComics]

On 11/9/2023 at 6:57 PM, Buzzetta said:

I don't consider the movie exploitive to the 9/11 experience nor that it benefitted from tugging at the 9/11 heart strings.  Pete Davidson is essentially playing himself growing up on Staten Island after losing his firefighter father in real life and as the character in the movie.  Apatow explored a lot of coping mechanisms surrounding the characters dealing in the aftermath of that experience and explored the new territory that these people had to come to grips with that they never envisioned for themselves.  When Pete's mother starts to date again, the reactions and experiences were real.  Here was a woman who did not find herself in the dating pool again through divorce but because of violent murderous death.  The undertones of guilt and coping while maintaining the rigors of raising a family were very real in that situation.  Pete is basically showing everyone what his real life was like after his dad passed away and that experience was very comparative to what many families were going through at the time.

So Peter Davidson is doing in movies what I've been doing on the CGC forums for 20 years. Cool beans.

I love this sort of authenticity and the world would be a better place with more of it, rather than the horrid reality shows we've been subjected to, perverting reality. 

I'll actually have to check it out. Thanks!

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

What a fun discussion. Gotta fly. Appreciated everyone's points and it kind of felt like the old CGC boards for a while. 

Most of all, thanks to the powers that be for allowing it. 

[paqart]

On 11/9/2023 at 6:05 PM, namisgr said:

Just so long as you can understand the message of a 'Prince Charming' annoys others.

Yes, but that wasn't what we were talking about. Also, the earlier Disney movies that did have Prince Charming-like characters enjoyed much wider acceptance than current films that lack such characters. The issue isn't whether someone somewhere likes a given subject, but whether it is a small minority preference with the potential to destroy Disney's business. I believe that the current focus has annoyed so much of their traditional customer base that Disney is losing money at what will be an unsustainable rate if it continues. This may be unwelcome to the people who championed the new story themes, but it looks like a realistic possibility.

Speaking for myself, Starting with Iron Man, I bought every MCU DVD until "Homecoming," after which I withdrew my support for Marvel. This means I own a couple movies I don't like, Civil War and Ragnarok, but I was hoping they were aberrations and didn't want to have gaps in the collection. I even stopped watching most MCU movies in theaters. I watched every Pixar movie until they were bought by Disney, then dropped them (not because they were bought by Disney, but Disney changes made the movies uninteresting.) I tried Disney +, but dropped them also, though more due to public statements made by their executives than anything else. So from me, they've lost a few hundred dollars. Not a huge amount, but I'm far from the only person who has reacted this way. It adds up.

My guess is that Disney will not survive unless they change directions with their company, regardless how many activists complain.

[1950's war comics]

On 11/9/2023 at 3:50 PM, VintageComics said:

I think it's a matter of who gets annoyed and how best to deal with it. 

For example, if the majority are annoyed it's bad business and judging by Disney's numbers the majority ARE annoyed. Math doesn't lie.

But if a minority of people are annoyed, well that's much more difficult to figure out how to deal with. 

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

Let me give you an example. I've mentioned this only once before on this forum, but as a neurologist you'll understand it well. 

I have an actual, specific "phobia" that is in some ways so debilitating it actually affects how I make my decisions. It affects how I navigate my social life, my relationships, being in public. Literally EVERY ASPECT OF MY LIFE is affected, it never goes away (quite literally), it's at the forefront of my mind at all times and it can make or break certain situations for me. I can't even watch a movie peacefully because of it. 

I've had it since the day I was born. It's not "learned" or "nurture". It's genetic but I never talk about it. 

This phobia affects less than 0.0005% of the population. Steve jobs had it. Another boardie on here has it because we've discussed it. It is a violent, internal disgust reaction toward a certain thing that has ruled by life for over 50 years. 

Should I start shouting it out on the hilltops and forcing Disney to incorporate this into movies? Should I be forcing everyone to conform to my own specific field of interest so that I can feel better?

If I was self entitled and myopic I'd do just that. 

But I LONG ago accepted this as my lot in life, and have managed it to the point where I can function normally and not only exist but thrive despite it being so debilitating. 

In fact, I've managed to face it to such a degree that even though it bothers me greatly, I can literally face it head on and not back down. 

Now imagine if someone catered to my little phobia and changed the world to make me feel better? The world would be a disaster, I would be a disaster and society would be a disaster. 

In this day and age I actually COULD push my agenda through, force people to back down and change and I would probably receive resounding support if I cried loud and long enough, but I'd actually be doing a disservice TO MYSELF by doing that because I'd never grow. 

Instead, I chose to deal with it privately and flourish despite it. 

 

So the real question is, where is the line drawn between what an individual wants and what is best for an industry, society or a culture?

We've engineered a culture where everyone can just shout out what their demands are and they expect to receive them. 

And we've also engineered a culture where if anyone tries to reasonable discuss it, they're shut down. 

Both adjustments are WRONG and they are both stemmed in an unbelievable amount of self entitlement that is so off the charts, we need a new universe to make that graph fit into this reality. 

 

great post vintage ! you could have chosen victimhood status instead you manned up your whole life!

you are an inspiration on these boards to all of those here who have a strong depth of knowledge 

Edited November 10, 2023 by 1950's war comics

[Buzzetta]

On 11/9/2023 at 6:58 PM, VintageComics said:

You're kind of sidestepping the main point of this discussion. 

Entertainment used to be the main goal of an entertainment company, but when influencing becomes the goal over the entertainment, that's no longer the same thing and I think it's pretty clear that's what's happening. 

And you don't even have to accept my opinion. It's the opinions of others, who WANT and are pushing for the influencing and have been vocal about it in this very thread that are confirming it, so it's not even a disputed opinion.

It's actually agreed upon BY BOTH SIDES. 

So that's a checkmate, right?

 

 

Not really.

My take is that you only felt that way when the parable or message became one that you disagreed with or deviated too far from your comfort zone.  

[paqart]

On 11/9/2023 at 7:48 PM, Buzzetta said:

Not really.

My take is that you only felt that way when the parable or message became one that you disagreed with or deviated too far from your comfort zone.  

This is irrelevant to the main point, which is the damage Disney is doing to itself by committing to the type of themes we've been seeing in recent years. I don't like the new Disney. Apparently, neither do others on this board. You may have an opposite opinion. However, that doesn't matter. It also doesn't matter if your opinion is objectively correct and everyone else is wrong. That would be like telling someone that their necktie is tied wrong while their hair is on fire. In that situation, no one should care about the necktie.

Disney was a brand beloved by hundreds of millions. Before long, it may be a brand beloved by a million or less. Those fans may be very happy with the new Disney, but Disney's shareholders (who once included my mother-in-law) probably won't appreciate sacrificing the value of their stock on the altar of the latest demand from non-shareholders. This is particularly the case when the people demanding that Disney change their products viscerally despise the values of the largest portion of Disney's customer base. That fact alone would be enough to convince any reasonable CEO to either do the opposite of what is demanded, or to ignore the request.

Everyone likes to imagine they are in the majority, but either one side is wrong, or neither is the majority because they are exactly equal. There are ways to determine which is which. The easiest measure for any publicly traded company is to look at its revenue. If it's falling, try to determine the cause. In this situation, one thing you don't want to do is ignore your customers when they frequently complain publicly about changes to your product.

My favorite comic books are all Disney properties. My favorite one thousand or so comic books all feature Donald Duck. That likely won't change because each story has intrinsic merit that will not vanish over time. The value of the Disney logo, however, could vanish very quickly, and is already happening. Unfortunately, their purchase of Marvel, Pixar, and Star Wars has already tainted all three of those brands.

[fantastic_four]

This thread is teetering on the brink of getting locked.

Feige's main problem with the films since Endgame has been twofold--he got severely derailed by Covid which lengthened phases 4 and 5 too much and delayed FF and X-Men, and he rested on his laurels from the Infinity Saga and decided to try to establish C and D list characters without anchoring the phases with more top-tier characters.  We would have been on to phase 6 by now and wouldn't be lingering so long on the lack of top-tier characters in phase 4 and 5, but Covid dragged them both out another 1.5 to 2 years which is really accentuating the lack of more compelling characters.

His other problem has been trying to tackle Disney Plus series.  He knows films, but wow, he does not know how to make great serial television shows.  Virtually every one is like a 2-hour movie padded out to 6 to 10 hours.  They're all pretty mediocre.

Edited November 10, 2023 by fantastic_four

[paqart]

On 11/9/2023 at 10:21 PM, fantastic_four said:

This thread is teetering on the brink of getting locked.

Feige's main problem with the films since Endgame has been twofold--he got severely derailed by Covid which lengthened phases 4 and 5 too much and delayed FF and X-Men, and he rested on his laurels from the Infinity Saga and decided to try to establish C and D list characters without anchoring the phases with more top-tier characters.  We would have been on to phase 6 by now and wouldn't be lingering so long on the lack of top-tier characters in phase 4 and 5, but Covid dragged them both out another 1.5 to 2 years which is really accentuating the lack of more compelling characters.

His other problem has been trying to tackle Disney Plus series.  He knows films, but wow, he does not know how to make great serial television shows.  Virtually every one is like a 2-hour movie padded out to 6 to 10 hours.  They're all pretty mediocre.

I disagree. The character tier seems to be unimportant, as shown by the popularity of Iron Man, Ant-Man, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Doctor Strange. What does seem to matter is how those properties are treated. The Human Fly is approximately a D-level character, but if done right, could easily be the raw material for a very popular movie. The trailer for "The Fall Guy" gives an idea what such a movie might look like.

What Disney is doing looks like a shell game to me, and one I'm familiar with from the story trajectory of many TV series, particularly Home Improvement. They take a popular character they don't like, transform that character into something they do like, then expect the large original audience to like the new version of the character. In this case, by "character" I also mean the type of storylines involved and the personalities of the characters, not just outward appearances.

I also disagree about the TV series. I enjoyed WandaVision, Loki, and She-Hulk. As for Star Wars, I also liked Andor and a couple others I forgot the titles of. I was particularly surprised by Andor, because it seemed critical of the kind of things Disney the corporation seems to support. I cancelled D+ because of the destruction of Marvel's films, and overt corporate interference in matters unrelated to their business. 

[Nick Furious]

On 11/9/2023 at 9:21 PM, fantastic_four said:

This thread is teetering on the brink of getting locked.

Feige's main problem with the films since Endgame has been twofold--he got severely derailed by Covid which lengthened phases 4 and 5 too much and delayed FF and X-Men, and he rested on his laurels from the Infinity Saga and decided to try to establish C and D list characters without anchoring the phases with more top-tier characters.  We would have been on to phase 6 by now and wouldn't be lingering so long on the lack of top-tier characters in phase 4 and 5, but Covid dragged them both out another 1.5 to 2 years which is really accentuating the lack of more compelling characters.

His other problem has been trying to tackle Disney Plus series.  He knows films, but wow, he does not know how to make great serial television shows.  Virtually every one is like a 2-hour movie padded out to 6 to 10 hours.  They're all pretty mediocre.

I don't think we can overlook the overt desire to expand the audience, specifically to bring in younger females.  It became obvious to me around 2020-2021 when my daughter, 11 at the time, suddenly knew more about the MCU than I did.  It was a lot of promotion through social media.  It also seems to me that a decision was made to increase the humor/silliness level in the MCU as well as the complexity of the interconnection between movies/shows.  Humor in a non-comedy movie is like seasoning in a recipe.  It works in the right quantities, not so much in large quantities.  I think the same is true of interconnection and required viewing of previous shows in order to appreciate the one you are currently watching.  It only works in appropriate quantities.