Top 5 M-SHE-U Failures 4 4

[october]

On 4/12/2023 at 7:35 PM, sfcityduck said:

 All of these stories require the viewer to suspend disbelief. If you can do it for Tony Stark and Peter Parker (the super-genius H.S. student) but not for a college girl, then you got to ask yourself why not.

But they AREN'T equivalent. Tony Stark was the son of a rich genius, went to MIT and ran a giant corporation for decades before getting stuck in that cave. That's not against all odds. 

I'll give you Peter Parker. He's equally silly. 

[sfcityduck]

On 4/12/2023 at 5:51 PM, october said:

But they AREN'T equivalent. Tony Stark was the son of a rich genius, went to MIT and ran a giant corporation for decades before getting stuck in that cave. That's not against all odds. 

I'll give you Peter Parker. He's equally silly. 

LoL!  You are aware that the young woman in question is a genius on scholarship to MIT?  Drunken playboy Tony would have been bought into the school by his dad. Being a CEO (that could be replaced by his girlfriend) is not indicative of the kind of genius that Tony is supposed to have.  Tony and Peter and Riri are all equally implausible.  Riri's story is not that different than Tom Holland Spiderman's.  

[october]

On 4/12/2023 at 8:01 PM, sfcityduck said:

LoL!  You are aware that the young woman in question is a genius on scholarship to MIT?  Drunken playboy Tony would have been bought into the school by his dad. Being a CEO (that could be replaced by his girlfriend) is not indicative of the kind of genius that Tony is supposed to have.  Tony and Peter and Riri are all equally implausible.  Riri's story is not that different than Tom Holland Spiderman's.  

I was thinking of Shuri. I don't know who Riri is, though it's good to know there are so many geniuses under 20 running around capable of feats that Tony Stark and Bruce Banner weren't able to do until decades later.

Edited April 13, 2023 by october

[sfcityduck]

On 4/12/2023 at 6:04 PM, october said:

I was thinking of Shuri. I don't know who Riri is, though it's good to know there are so many geniuses under 20 running around capable of feats that Tony Stark and Bruce Banner weren't able to do until decades later.

Riri is Ironheart.  Kids are smarter now.  The notion that a middle-aged drunk playboy can be a master of computer science is probably the unlikely scenario now.  Tony was supposed to be 21 when he took over Stark.  So not that different a story.

[Hulksdaddy1]

On 4/12/2023 at 6:16 PM, october said:

Would a male Mary Sue face the same scrutiny? Honestly, probably not...

 

[october]

On 4/12/2023 at 8:09 PM, sfcityduck said:

Riri is Ironheart.  Kids are smarter now.  The notion that a middle-aged drunk playboy can be a master of computer science is probably the unlikely scenario now.  Tony was supposed to be 21 when he took over Stark.  So not that different a story.

You don't work in IT, do you? People think coders are all kids because the high profile companies churn/burn/exploit young talent until they gain experience, wise up and quit. The average age of an employed coder is 47 (just looked it up).

[Hulksdaddy1]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:09 PM, sfcityduck said:

Kids are smarter now. 

 

[JC25427N]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:01 PM, sfcityduck said:

LoL!  You are aware that the young woman in question is a genius on scholarship to MIT?  Drunken playboy Tony would have been bought into the school by his dad. Being a CEO (that could be replaced by his girlfriend) is not indicative of the kind of genius that Tony is supposed to have.  Tony and Peter and Riri are all equally implausible.  Riri's story is not that different than Tom Holland Spiderman's.  

Origins aside I think the main issue with Riri is how she was shoehorned into a story as basically nothing more than a plot device and given essentially no character development in that movie, so the implausibility of it all hits harder/has more of a whiplash than Tony Stark where we saw him first develop as a character in his own movie and then throughout many other movies. Hopefully her show rectifies that

[JC25427N]

For Riri, if she absolutely had to be in Wakanda Forever, I think it would have been better if she had a more limited role in the movie (similar to Spider-Man in Civil War) so we could get a small introduction to her and leave the audience waiting and wanting to fully explore her more as a character. But she was basically the secondary protagonist of the movie but wasn't given appropriate writing for how involved she was in what was essentially her first full appearance in the MCU ( I don't think she needed to be in that movie at all, so aside from the initial decision to have her involved as much she was, I don't blame them for not knowing what to do with her in this story) so it leaves people with that sour taste when it comes to her. 

Edited April 13, 2023 by JC25427N

[media_junkie]

On 4/12/2023 at 8:37 PM, @therealsilvermane said:

Do you think the “quality over quantity” statement and postponing the film three months is some kind of bluff by Iger and Feige? 

Three months?  Wasn't this film originally set for summer 2022?  This is like the 4th or 5th time it has been pushed.

[Kripsys99]

Didn't think it was possible, but@sfcityduck is making me feel more racist and misogynistic than Disney+'s She-Hulk writers did! ;) And all because I don't like the current creative direction of the MCU, the current crop of poorly written female characters, and the recent buffoonish portrayal of long beloved male characters who were previously tenured and central main protagonists in both the MCU, and the wider comics/movie industry.

Does it feel a little uncomfortable as a white male to be calling out Disney/Marvel for diminishing their products by virtue of how they've gone about increasing the number of women and minorities in their franchises? Yes. But I'm calling out HOW they're doing it (at the expense of good story telling and character development), not THAT they're doing it.

My 8-year-old (biracial, as that type of bona fides seems to matter nowadays) daughter LOVES comics, and women superheroes. I love introducing her to female superheroes whose values and work ethics she can emulate. I love empowering her, and making sure she knows that she has as much potential for greatness as any misogynistic boy who might try to tell her otherwise on the playground.

But I see few of those values and ethics being meaningfully portrayed in the MCU. Instead, the portrayals of women and ethnically diverse characters in the MCU wreak of corporate tokenism, and the relegation of male characters and male character traits to being portrayed as "less than" are not things I want either my daughter or son to think of as acceptable.

I'm not a fan of Nerdrotic. I wouldn't be shocked if you told me he stormed the capital on January 6. But that doesn't mean he hasn't hit on something here. Even a blind squirrel can find a nut sometimes and all that.

Nor am I a fan of people blindly accusing others of bigotry for pointing out the problems which sometimes arise when corporations rushedly and clumsily try to make up for past societal (and corporate) wrongs - often only out of a desire to increase profits.

By any metric you want to use (box office, critical reception, TV ratings, etc.), recent MCU productions are in a state of decline. Many fans are (reasonably) pointing to issues similar to those raised by Nerdrotic as potential factors in that decline. Voicing a similar position doesn't mean you're a racist, a misogynist, or that you're blind to Marvel's longstanding commitment to diversity.

To the contrary, I would argue that insisting that Disney/Marvel commit to giving their female/ethnically diverse superheroes the same quality background, development, and storytelling which they previously afforded their white/male stable of superheroes, is a more socially responsible position to take. But that's just me.

[@therealsilvermane]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:52 PM, media_junkie said:

Three months?  Wasn't this film originally set for summer 2022?  This is like the 4th or 5th time it has been pushed.

All the MCU movies have been pushed back a few times, partly because of the pandemic lockdowns. This last move however is a singular one and does seem to be a reaction move that’s part of the quality over quantity policy Marvel Studios is adapting. 

[thegiftedone45]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:09 PM, sfcityduck said:

Riri is Ironheart.  Kids are smarter now.  The notion that a middle-aged drunk playboy can be a master of computer science is probably the unlikely scenario now.  Tony was supposed to be 21 when he took over Stark.  So not that different a story.

Yeah that's definitely not true.  Go into any general level high school class in the U.S. and you'd be shocked. 

[drotto]

On 4/12/2023 at 10:24 PM, thegiftedone45 said:

Yeah that's definitely not true.  Go into any general level high school class in the U.S. and you'd be shocked. 

Studies agree with you...

 

https://thehill.com/policy/technology/3922608-american-iqs-rose-30-points-in-the-last-century-now-they-may-be-falling/

 

It is not that smart characters have been introduced.  It is the fact that we are basically getting the same characters.  We went from Tony Stark and Bruce Banner being the local brilliant people.  (Peter is kinda in this category also, but I think this version of Spider-Man has not pushed how smart he is, and besides the current MJ is hinted to be the smarter one.) We had multiple plots explaining how they got there, and they were both older, so they had plenty of time to get there.  It makes sense, and also their funding makes sense. Now we have two characters that are very similar (when it comes to personality not background) in RiRi Williams and Shuri, but if that was not enough lets make Cassie a young genius also. Now, I will concede Shuri's abilities are better explained and she has spoon tons of funding being Wankandin Royalty, but RiRi and Cassie with no funding invent the McGuffin with which the plot of the film does not work. Not only are we told they are smart, it is heavily implied that all are smarter than the characters that have come before. That is poor writing, and lacks originality. 

 

 

[sfcityduck]

On 4/12/2023 at 7:03 PM, Kripsys99 said:

 

Nor am I a fan of people blindly accusing others of bigotry for pointing out the problems which sometimes arise when corporations rushedly and clumsily try to make up for past societal (and corporate) wrongs - often only out of a desire to increase profits.

 

I'm not "blindly accusing" anyone.  

Corporations almost ALWAYS act of a desire to increase profits. Their Boards owe that duty to shareholders. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't find blaming the "corporations" as a convincing argument. In the end, corporations are fun by people, and some pursue profits in a more palatable way than others. Marvel historically has been one of the good ones. I don't see Disney undermining that at all. 

[sfcityduck]

On 4/12/2023 at 7:03 PM, Kripsys99 said:

 

By any metric you want to use (box office, critical reception, TV ratings, etc.), recent MCU productions are in a state of decline. Many fans are (reasonably) pointing to issues similar to those raised by Nerdrotic as potential factors in that decline. Voicing a similar position doesn't mean you're a racist, a misogynist, or that you're blind to Marvel's longstanding commitment to diversity.

 

Arguments I've made up thread are being pointedly ignored. 19 of the MCU's first 20 movies were centered on men. 6 of the last 12 have arguably been centered on women. And yet, folks on this thread are literally complaining about "female dominance" and calling for "balance."  Say wha?  Facts matter.  These stats don't lie and they rebut the statements made up thread.

Opinions matter less so. The movie industry is hurting overall, so year to year box office comparisons are meaningless. Within year comparisons are meaningful.  And in 2022, Disney/Marvel had four of the top 10 grossing movies. No other studio/property had more than two. That's not a decline. That's dominance.  Black Panther: Wakanda Forever is the most-watched Disney Plus movie ever (which may be due to the fact that Disney+ has grown by huge margins the last three years). 

In 2023, Disney/Marvel has released one movie. It's presently the third highest grossing of this year. That's the kind of "decline" the other studios are dreaming of.  Later this year Loki Season 2 is coming out. It will likely be a top tv show. Again, Disney is not failing. 

In my view, if your big complaint is "female dominance" you probably are being a bit lazy in your analysis. You certainly can complain about the writing. Marvel has had many horrible movies over the years and many subpar tv shows. That's almost always due to bad storytelling. That's show business. But even shows that feature great writing can underperform with audiences (Star Wars: Andor is the best example). Sometimes that is just because audience expectations were not aligned with what was delivered. That does not mean that the show was bad - it can be that the audience just wasn't ready (again Andor is a great example). The comic fan community may be less prepared for female centered stories, at least ones that aren't based on objectifying women, than they should be. At least that's the impression I get when I hear the shrill outrage about "female dominance." The outrage is outsized to the problems with the movies - which are pretty typical problems for Marvel movies. Marvel movies aren't serious Oscar contenders. They are just light fun entertainment which are hit and miss.

 

[sfcityduck]

On 4/12/2023 at 7:56 PM, drotto said:

 

It is not that smart characters have been introduced.  It is the fact that we are basically getting the same characters.  We went from Tony Stark and Bruce Banner being the local brilliant people.  (Peter is kinda in this category also, but I think this version of Spider-Man has not pushed how smart he is, and besides the current MJ is hinted to be the smarter one.) We had multiple plots explaining how they got there, and they were both older, so they had plenty of time to get there.  It makes sense, and also their funding makes sense. Now we have two characters that are very similar (when it comes to personality not background) in RiRi Williams and Shuri, but if that was not enough lets make Cassie a young genius also. Now, I will concede Shuri's abilities are better explained and she has spoon tons of funding being Wankandin Royalty, but RiRi and Cassie with no funding invent the McGuffin with which the plot of the film does not work. Not only are we told they are smart, it is heavily implied that all are smarter than the characters that have come before. That is poor writing, and lacks originality. 

 

Translated: "I've had time to get used to the male heroes who have been around since the early 1960s.  I have not had time to get used to the stories of the new characters which have been around less than ten years. So I find the stories I'm familiar with iconic and the stories I'm not flawed - even though the flaws are similar in both sets of stories."  

That's a bias based on your age, background, and experience. Comics are constantly recycling ideas. We tend to like the ones from our youth and dislike the later ones.  A young person whose early comic reading experiences were Ironheart stories may not share your views. This site, by its nature, is largely old guys like me yelling "get off my lawn!" I like sharing the nostalgia with folks on this site, but this is not where I come to see what hipper younger people think. I'm old enough that I never really got into rap, my favorite band to watch is still U2, and my go to song lyric on this phenomenon would be:

Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
And don't criticize what you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand

[drotto]

On 4/13/2023 at 12:49 AM, sfcityduck said:

Translated: "I've had time to get used to the male heroes who have been around since the early 1960s.  I have not had time to get used to the stories of the new characters which have been around less than ten years. So I find the stories I'm familiar with iconic and the stories I'm not flawed - even though the flaws are similar in both sets of stories."  

That's a bias based on your age, background, and experience. Comics are constantly recycling ideas. We tend to like the ones from our youth and dislike the later ones.  A young person whose early comic reading experiences were Ironheart stories may not share your views. This site, by its nature, is largely old guys like me yelling "get off my lawn!" I like sharing the nostalgia with folks on this site, but this is not where I come to see what hipper younger people think. I'm old enough that I never really got into rap, my favorite band to watch is still U2, and my go to song lyric on this phenomenon would be:

Come mothers and fathers throughout the land
And don't criticize what you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can't lend your hand

I am sorry.  You are trying to pass failing to understand modernity as an excuse for poor story telling. You are failing to recognize that younger readers are not reading comics, but they have not abandoned reading.  Again, they are reading Manga.  So that begs the question as to why.  The best answer is manga is giving them the stories, characters, and yes the quality of writing they all readers demand to keep them interested, but they are not finding that in US comics.  If the quality was still there the industry would not be failing, and all attempts to find new audiences have failed. Not for lack of trying or diversifying, but for lack of quality. It is not hip for "kids" to read US comics, so you will struggle to find any comic forum with a preponderance of young readers on it.

 

And again, I am generally drawn to female characters.  I know that may be an absolute shock to you. My all time favorite character is Kitty Pryde (coincidentally, my wife shares an almost disturbing number of personality traits, and even physical traits to the character) . I love Rouge, Catwoman, Harley, Poison Ivy, etc.  I have never been a big reader of solo books like Spier-Man, Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, etc.  Instead, I have always been drawn to team books, especially the X-Men.  One of the main reasons is, I like having both male and female characters. It provides, for me, a balance and perspective that single character male centric books always seemed to lack.  I have the long boxes to prove that I have tried so many of these new supposedly hot characters, and after years and 100's of issues, I gave up.  The reason, the new characters lacked development, they lacked originality, they lacked subtly, they lacked faults, and the lacked growth. It is seeing that these attempts are far more about pandering, appeasement, and has become about checking boxes, not about creating characters.  

[Kripsys99]

On 4/13/2023 at 12:04 AM, sfcityduck said:

I'm not "blindly accusing" anyone.

Unless you are saying that you're knowingly accusing people, you may want to re-read some of your previous posts in this thread, with an eye towards what you are implying are the motivations of anyone who disagrees with your position.

On 4/13/2023 at 12:04 AM, sfcityduck said:

Corporations almost ALWAYS act of a desire to increase profits. Their Boards owe that duty to shareholders. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't find blaming the "corporations" as a convincing argument. In the end, corporations are fun by people, and some pursue profits in a more palatable way than others. Marvel historically has been one of the good ones. I don't see Disney undermining that at all. 

That doesn't make corporations immune from criticism. Is a desire to increase diversity within film a "palatable" way for a corporation (Disney/Marvel) to increase profits? Yes, of course! Has Disney done a good job? Not in my opinion, nor in the opinions of many in this thread.

If your favorite coffee chain decided to use only fair-trade organic coffee beans in an attempt to increase profits by catering to individuals concerned about the pitfalls of globalization and the dangers of pesticide use (a laudable, if not wholly altruistic goal), but their coffee ends up tasting bad as a result, would you just keep drinking it without complaint, happy in the knowledge that at least foreign growers were getting their fair share without getting exposed to dangerous chemicals? If, by chance, you were unhappy about the change in your morning cup of joe, whom would you blame? The barista? Or the corporation that decided to move away from your preferred arabica bean? Would it make you more or less upset to know that they could have used other fair-trade organic beans that would have resulted in better tasting coffee, but inexplicably chose not to?

Edited April 13, 2023 by Kripsys99

[PopKulture]

On 4/12/2023 at 9:03 PM, Kripsys99 said:

I'm not a fan of Nerdrotic. I wouldn't be shocked if you told me he stormed the capital on January 6. 

Just as a heads-up, this would probably be considered by moderation a trespass into politics, which is expressly forbidden on these Boards. I don't want to see anyone get a flogging, 'less of course they're into it.