Top 5 M-SHE-U Failures 4 4

[sfcityduck]

On 4/13/2023 at 11:18 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

Marvel has admitted that she's largely to blame for the so-called M-She-U by firing her.

 

Really?  Where's they say that?  They didn't.  And Iger has endorsed the new direction of more new characters and less sequels with the old standbys and the old stories.

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 4/13/2023 at 2:21 PM, sfcityduck said:

Really?  Where's they say that?  They didn't.  And Iger has endorsed the new direction of more new characters and less sequels with the old standbys and the old stories.

Actions speak louder than words. They fired her.

[Bosco685]

On 4/13/2023 at 1:35 PM, sfcityduck said:

Who wants to go to Disney World?  Florida is a terrible state and Disneyland is much better.

That still works. Just please. Wear the ears for the video. Iger says it is a branding thing.

[Mr Sneeze]

On 4/13/2023 at 2:09 PM, Dr. Balls said:

In other news, Brie Larsen opening a beer is never a failure.

 

Is that Brie Larson? No.
 

For the record, I liked CM as well. I thought Brie and Samuel Jackson had a good back and forth and I appreciated the quick third act wrap up. Never understood the fuss really.

[Bosco685]

On 4/13/2023 at 2:31 PM, Mr Sneeze said:

Is that Brie Larson? No.
 

For the record, I liked CM as well. I thought Brie and Samuel Jackson had a good back and forth and I appreciated the quick third act wrap up. Never understood the fuss really.

Random GIF

https://tenor.com/view/bikini-bounce-beer-shake-gif-14632628

I was excited for the first movie. Watched that teaser trailer multiple times when it came out. Then I saw the movie, and just did not connect with the story or the portrayal. And I like Brie Larson. I just did not care for her messaging off-screen, including the interviews where she was just trying to play into the character as the oddball outside working her way in.

Doesn't mean she is a bad actress or person. Just not for me.

[drotto]

On 4/13/2023 at 2:19 PM, sfcityduck said:

Thanks.  That's a very weak presentation of a discrimination case.  I don't see it going anywhere.  Based on the article, she looks dead in the water because she violated her contract by making and promoting a non-Disney film. Again, has she filed suit or was this just a test by her attorney to see if Disney wanted to bury adverse publicity?  

Iger's statement about wanting to do new characters and less sequels cuts against your view on the use of new characters.

Never said it was a good suit, but the claim has been made.  I am also fully cognizant that a lot has happened behind the scenes, we either have not been made aware of yet, or may never be fully aware of.  What we do know is we have a fired executive, that was very powerful and influential. That the publically stated reasons for the firing have been very carefully worded and presented by Disney to fit their narrative and protect them legally.  Like most things, the truth is likely in the middle. Meaning her viewpoints and causes likely affected and are reflected her work, as can be reasonably implied from her own public statements. Disney can't publicly acknowledge that, or it leaves them open for a whole world of new problems. But it is naive to think some of this did not impact the decision.  Even if it is as simple as Iger thinking she was influential in taking down Chapick, I do not want her sights on me.

 

As for making her film with Amazon, she claims Disney was fine and supportive of the project, as long as it did not impact her work at Disney. That they had essentially signed off on it, and were fully aware of it.  They made it an issue only when they needed more reasons to justify her termination. 

 

The next step many are taking is that Alonso’s leanings, her rise in power within Marvel (and others like her), and the inclusion of some of those leanings making it into the product, match up with the downward trends that the MCU is currently seeing.  You can write those off as coincidental if you like.  You can deny the connections exists, but a very reasonable argument can be made they go hand in hand.

[Zonker]

I do think the pre-Covid vs. post-Covid comparisons for MCU film performance are apples-to-oranges.

I also think many of Disney's recent changes suggest they think they are not doing a good enough job of harvesting as many oranges as they could, regardless of the bumper crops of apples they enjoyed in the past.  

[paperheart]

On 4/13/2023 at 11:07 AM, sfcityduck said:

Three observations:

(1) Your chart does not support that Disney lost money on Q.  It instead supports that they made $140M over budget.  

(2) Between 2018 and 2023 there was a pandemic.  Industry-wide factors are at play here, which are not limited to Disney, which have depressed box office receipts.

(3) Which is why even though Q is down from prior years' movies, that's still a great result as Q is sitting in the top two or three grosses for 2023.

 

Not how it works, at best they get 50% of BO and there's another $150M of P&A expense on top of the production budget.

[TupennyConan]

On 4/13/2023 at 2:31 PM, Mr Sneeze said:

For the record, I liked CM as well. I thought Brie and Samuel Jackson had a good back and forth and I appreciated the quick third act wrap up. Never understood the fuss really.

I thought it was a decent mid-grade MCU film. I too never understood the fuss.

[TupennyConan]

On 4/13/2023 at 2:47 PM, Zonker said:

I do think the pre-Covid vs. post-Covid comparisons for MCU film performance are apples-to-oranges.

I also think many of Disney's recent changes suggest they think they are not doing a good enough job of harvesting as many oranges as they could, regardless of the bumper crops of apples they enjoyed in the past.  

I'm so hungry. 

[drotto]

On 4/13/2023 at 2:51 PM, paperheart said:

Not how it works, at best they get 50% of BO and there's another $150M of P&A expense on top of the production budget.

Exactly, that is were you get the various multiplies from.  For example a $200 million budgeted movie like QM likely had an added $125 to $150 in marketing, meaning Disney is about $325 million in the hole before the movie is release.  The exact returns vary based on domestic (55%), international (42%), and China (25%), so based on domestic vs international breakdown mist MCU films will return between 47 to 50% of box office to Disney.   Thus take $325 x 0.5 = $650 million as the break even point (give or take there are some assumptions here).  Is this exact, nope.  There are likely cost overruns, varying returns from different markets etc.  But is get you close.

 

Further, you must consider Disney has serverly limited its after theatrical run returns.  By going straight to their streaming, VOD, DVD, and BluRay are no longer significant income streams for them.  Although they likely receive a fair amount from TV and other viewing licenses (like airline travel).  But overall, with the current setup the vast majority of money must be made in the theaters.

[sfcityduck]

On 4/13/2023 at 11:45 AM, drotto said:

Like most things, the truth is likely in the middle. Meaning her viewpoints and causes likely affected and are reflected her work, as can be reasonably implied from her own public statements. Disney can't publicly acknowledge that, or it leaves them open for a whole world of new problems. But it is naive to think some of this did not impact the decision.  Even if it is as simple as Iger thinking she was influential in taking down Chapick, I do not want her sights on me.

 

If Iger fired because he thought she was personally disloyal, there's nothing wrong with that.  

The notion that Iger would fire her because he was uncomfortable with her views on gay rights is, frankly, unbelievable. Not only would Disney be hyper-sensitive to that improper motivation, but Iger has been very vocal in his support of gay rights and is going to war in Florida on that point. So you have lost me on the Disney fired her because of her "activism" argument.  There's no evidence other than an attorney's statements which look pretty careful and soft to me.

Edited April 13, 2023 by sfcityduck

[Kripsys99]

Popping in one last time to point out @sfcityduck that you said you were  done with this thread like 5 pages and 22 posts ago.

For your own sanity, and the sanity of all those here, I encourage you to hew to your past convictions, and abandon the thread.

I'm out!

Edited April 13, 2023 by Kripsys99
Better angels

[sfcityduck]

On 4/13/2023 at 11:45 AM, drotto said:

The next step many are taking is that Alonso’s leanings, her rise in power within Marvel (and others like her), and the inclusion of some of those leanings making it into the product, match up with the downward trends that the MCU is currently seeing.  You can write those off as coincidental if you like.  You can deny the connections exists, but a very reasonable argument can be made they go hand in hand.

Here's the thing:  Whenever I hear someone say "many believe X" or "many say X" without any supporting evidence I am skeptical. It's what certain politicians say when they are making things up.  It might work in a speech, but it doesn't work when folks can challenge your assertion and ask for evidence.

Here's what I find particularly unbelievable: You assert that "the inclusion of some of those leanings making it into the product, match up with the downward trends that the MCU is currently seeing."  Setting aside whether there is even a correlation, the notion that Marvel would lose popularity because of espousing civil rights for all is empiracly wrong. Since almost the start of the Marvel Universe the comics have consistently pushed liberal/progressive values on civil rights and rejected those opposed to civil rights for all. Women superheroes were there from the start. X-Men was a civil rights allegory. Sgt. Fury took on racism head on in the early 60s. Robbie Robertson, Black Panther, Black Goliath, etc. were all strong minority characters intended to push civil rights. Stan Lee was unapologetic and an activist on these topics.  That didn't hurt Marvel in the 1960s or later. This never slowed up. Gay rights were tackled by the 1980s. Marvel did not lose popularity for taking these stances. These movies are in keeping with Marvel's core values.  They aren't a departure from them.  There's a reason that Marvel is popular and Spire Christian Comics lasted only a few years. 

So, "no," your correlation doesn't resonate with me at all. It's not evidenced.  And the evidence is to the contrary. 

The "many" (really a few) are wrong.

[sfcityduck]

On 4/13/2023 at 12:24 PM, Kripsys99 said:

Popping in one last time to point out @sfcityduck that you said you were  done with this thread like 5 pages and 22 posts ago.

 

For your own sanity, and the sanity of all those here, I encourage you to hew to your past convictions, and abandon the thread.

I'm out!

 

True I said that. But my sanity is safe. I suppose others might suffer less cognitive dissonance if I left.  And I would be happy to do so, but some things deserve a response.

[Dr. Balls]

On 4/13/2023 at 12:31 PM, Mr Sneeze said:

Is that Brie Larson? No.

It’s Brie Larsen to me. 

[Hulksdaddy1]

You all realize @sfcityduck is not debating Disney/Marvel movies, right? He's debating his ideology, which is why facts will have no effect on his beliefs.

[JC25427N]

On 4/13/2023 at 3:52 PM, Hulksdaddy1 said:

You all realize @sfcityduck is not debating Disney/Marvel movies, right? He's debating his ideology, which is why facts will have no effect on his beliefs.

Can you go ruin someone else's entertainment I haven't renewed my Netflix yet 

[JC25427N]

Some posts in this thread have better writing and composition than Multiverse of Madness. 

 

Someone had to say it

[sfcityduck]

On 4/13/2023 at 12:52 PM, Hulksdaddy1 said:

You all realize @sfcityduck is not debating Disney/Marvel movies, right? He's debating his ideology, which is why facts will have no effect on his beliefs.

This whole thread is about ideology.  Did you watch the video that started it?  

But I'm debating facts.  Not feelings.  Facts.  And there are no facts that movies centered on female characters are destroying the MCU for the simple reason that the facts are that Marvel movies were four of the top 10 highest grossing movies last year.  That's two more in the top 10 than any other property or studio. That fact alone destroys the case. So what we get are more and more fanciful opinions tossed around in an attempt to justify an ideological view put out by a crazy youtuber.  Meanwhile, the actual history and values of Marvel seem to have been forgotten.  

As for my ideology, I'm with Stan Lee. This is a better video than the one that starts this thread:

In it, Stan Lee states:

"Marvel has always been and always will be a reflection of the world right outside our window.  That world may change and evolve, but the one thing that will never change is the way we tell our stories of heroism. Those stories have room for everyone, regardless of their race, gender or color of their skin.  The only things we don’t have room for are hatred, intolerance and bigotry.”

Edited April 13, 2023 by sfcityduck