|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 28, 2017 21:24:12 GMT
(And....Nazis were "brown people"?) you have a strong propensity for blatant misinterpretation and good old ignorance. Coming from an innocent bystander: 1. No evidently that was not meant by his statement. 2. And yes, the Nazis were referred to as the "Browns" (Die Braunen), as this was their official party color. Learn history. Noted. "Brown people" is not referring to skin color.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 28, 2017 21:26:04 GMT
you have a strong propensity for blatant misinterpretation and good old ignorance. Coming from an innocent bystander: 1. No evidently that was not meant by his statement. 2. And yes, the Nazis were referred to as the "Browns" (Die Braunen), as this was their official party color. Learn history. Noted. "Brown people" is not referring to skin color. Note again.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 28, 2017 21:35:23 GMT
Noted. "Brown people" is not referring to skin color. Note again. SJW politics are complicated. So "brown people" is not about skin color only in certain situations where it would invalidate a claim by the SJW. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by coldenhaulfield on Oct 29, 2017 1:27:50 GMT
Note again. SJW politics are complicated. So "brown people" is not about skin color only in certain situations where it would invalidate a claim by the SJW. Got it. Wow.
|
|
|
Post by Hauntedknight87 on Oct 29, 2017 1:54:20 GMT
Of course he won't. He's a fan therefor hypocrisy is..... well you know. FIFY All fans act like that. Or did you miss all the things DC fans complain about with Marvel movies that also happen in DC movies? JL is about to have " jokes", " character coming back from the dead", and " faceless horde attack"....can you guess how many DC fans will be consistent and claim those are "flaws"? As far as when will the marvel bubble burst? How long were those mindless dreck Idol shows insanely popular? Close to a decade? Longer? No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public or the world public for that matter. Shiny images, colorful costumes, loud explosions without fear of any character the kids love being hurt and most importantly jokes that can be understood by toddlers as well as grandparents and everyone in between is a can't miss recipe for success. As long as the mcu sticks to that basic formula and hires somewhat competent directors the masses will laugh their selves silly and keep buying tickets. The fact a larger percentage of people know Drax said "I have famously huge turds" than know the famous quote from my paragraph above speaks volumes. Not to be condescending but how many posters reading this even know there was a famous quote above? I could name the people here who most likely do but that would only make other people complain to the mod so I digress. Toss in the fact a "critic" these days is anyone with access to an internet connection who is capable of using spellcheck and the marvel bubble is safe. I myself have enjoyed several mcu movies despite the fact the majority are as imminently forgettable as the sweet or salty snacks consumed while watching them. Wow...the elitism is strong with this post. "The masses" are of course stupid because they don't share the taste of the hipsters who feel they should be in charge of all entertainment. How dare they not know the quotes that are deemed "worthy"? And of course the usual turning on any critic who doesn't fall in line with the hipster opinion of art. How dare they enjoy fun movies! RT additionally (next to the average score) has also the infamous Tomatometer gimmick which simply is the average binary system of thumbs down or up (rotten/fresh) and often yielding absurd high and low results. It's a crap system but it's their unique selling gimmick, so that's that. I find the RT score far more useful than the "average score". I use reviews to decide whether or not to see a movie after all....not to tell me how much I "should" like a movie. The average score is pretty worthless to me. Elitist? I wasn't demanding it. I only said that a PART of me wants that. I've got nothing against CBM, hell I loved them so far... well some of them at least. Be honest here. You know just as well as I do that it's starting to become a overly saturated market. Especially since Fox, Warner Bros and Marvel Studios are going to release multiple CBM in the same year with Marvel even planning FOUR films a year. I'm calling it now: It the next 10 years these films will start bombing more than the United States bombing a country of brown people. I don't believe in a "saturated market" unless they start putting out bad movies or repeating themselves. That gets boring and of course the public will get tired of it. That's what kills popular genres. If they stay creative in the genre it will continue to thrive. The public doesn't get tired of TV shows that come out once a week. Game of Thrones has 10 episodes a year until recently and the fans are in mourning every time a season ends. 6 CB movies a year isn't that big a time commitment. Thor 3 is different so that is going to have a positive effect on genre. (And....Nazis were "brown people"?) Just letting you know the "bombing brown people" was just a joke. But i have to admit i was heavily inspired by the great late George Carlin.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 29, 2017 2:01:02 GMT
The Disney corporation has the money to blow the marketing for a film like John Carter and not care one iota. So they can churn these films out for a while. Aren't the Pirates movies regarded with less enthusiasm and yet Disney claims record merchandising profits?
Nice to see a mention of King Kong-since that was made by an American founded studio and also made by an American born filmmaker. Wow a filmamker making a film for people of his own heritage. It seems so quaint now.
I think though that if Disney keeps dialing up the social engineering propaganda (and they seem to be increasing, not decreasing it) they will completely lose their domestic audience but they probably do not care. Eisner said in the 90s he wanted Disney to be "entertainer for the globe" so I don't think domestic audiences really matter to them.
|
|
TheHiawatha
Sophomore
@thehiawatha
Posts: 118
Likes: 35
|
Post by TheHiawatha on Oct 29, 2017 4:59:44 GMT
Are you talking the bubble bursting as in the whole franchise basically goes down, or the bubble bursting as in terms of peak popularity?
The franchise as a whole is extremely well established at this point, and has access to Disney's massive bank accounts. Even if it starts going down the toilet, it has more than enough money to withstand a few bumps in the road and perhaps even reboot. If James Bond can come back from its low points, so can the MCU whenever that day comes.
Now as for peak popularity, I think it'll begin to decline sometime in the early 2020s, bursting the bubble in that way. The Infinity War saga will have concluded, and RDJ, Chris Evans, and some other major leads may be moving on at that point. Also, with more separate stories to focus on vs a common narrative with some big subplots, it may get harder and harder for anyone but the core fans to keep track of. And with more saturation of the market from both Marvel and its rivals, there's a bigger risk for burnout.
When the popularity bubble bursts, I think it'll take DC and X-Men with it.
In the long run, I see the MCU becoming to superhero films what James Bond is to spy films. Even if spy films are no longer all the rage, James Bond still is known and keeps the genre relevant. That's what I see happening to the MCU, even after the superhero film bubble as a whole has popped.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 29, 2017 18:05:45 GMT
The Disney corporation has the money to blow the marketing for a film like John Carter and not care one iota. So they can churn these films out for a while. Aren't the Pirates movies regarded with less enthusiasm and yet Disney claims record merchandising profits? Nice to see a mention of King Kong-since that was made by an American founded studio and also made by an American born filmmaker. Wow a filmamker making a film for people of his own heritage. It seems so quaint now. I think though that if Disney keeps dialing up the social engineering propaganda (and they seem to be increasing, not decreasing it) they will completely lose their domestic audience but they probably do not care. Eisner said in the 90s he wanted Disney to be "entertainer for the globe" so I don't think domestic audiences really matter to them. Interesting how all that marketing on John Carter couldn't hypnotize the public into buying tickets. I guess that theory doesn't work, eh? Are you talking the bubble bursting as in the whole franchise basically goes down, or the bubble bursting as in terms of peak popularity? The franchise as a whole is extremely well established at this point, and has access to Disney's massive bank accounts. Even if it starts going down the toilet, it has more than enough money to withstand a few bumps in the road and perhaps even reboot. If James Bond can come back from its low points, so can the MCU whenever that day comes. Now as for peak popularity, I think it'll begin to decline sometime in the early 2020s, bursting the bubble in that way. The Infinity War saga will have concluded, and RDJ, Chris Evans, and some other major leads may be moving on at that point. Also, with more separate stories to focus on vs a common narrative with some big subplots, it may get harder and harder for anyone but the core fans to keep track of. And with more saturation of the market from both Marvel and its rivals, there's a bigger risk for burnout. When the popularity bubble bursts, I think it'll take DC and X-Men with it. In the long run, I see the MCU becoming to superhero films what James Bond is to spy films. Even if spy films are no longer all the rage, James Bond still is known and keeps the genre relevant. That's what I see happening to the MCU, even after the superhero film bubble as a whole has popped. I just thought of a key difference between Marvel and other studios making CB movies. That's all Marvel does. Fox, Sony, and WB can make other kinds of movies if they need to. Marvel is wholly dependent on the CB genre to operate. No wonder Feige roots for DC movies to do well. If other studios make bad movies, that hurts the genre and Marvel doesn't have any alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 29, 2017 18:16:36 GMT
Interesting how all that marketing on John Carter couldn't hypnotize the public into buying tickets. I guess that theory doesn't work, eh? The point is how badly Disney marketed the film-(almost as if they took a page from the Warner Bros executives in 1975 with Doc Savage and deliberately injected ludicrous humor gestures into it). Articles have been written on how awful the marketing campaign was. Disney usually took great care in marketing their films--it was as if they deliberately wanted the film to fail (I think they did). Wasnt a fan of the movie but I think Disney executives wanted it to fail because it didnt fit their ideological blueprint since the hero was an old fashioned white male without a multicultural crew or overt neurosis. It also demonstrates that money is not their concern. They got money to burn.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 29, 2017 18:29:39 GMT
Interesting how all that marketing on John Carter couldn't hypnotize the public into buying tickets. I guess that theory doesn't work, eh? The point is how badly Disney marketed the film-(almost as if they took a page from the Warner Bros executives in 1975 with Doc Savage and deliberately injected ludicrous humor gestures into it). Articles have been written on how awful the marketing campaign was. Disney usually took great care in marketing their films--it was as if they deliberately wanted the film to fail (I think they did). Wasnt a fan of the movie but I think Disney executives wanted it to fail because it didnt fit their ideological blueprint since the hero was an old fashioned white male without a multicultural crew or overt neurosis. It also demonstrates that money is not their concern. They got money to burn. So....if a movie that is marketed fails...that means either: 1-it was marketed badly 2-the studio wanted it to fail?? So you are dismissing the idea that the public just wasn't interested in the movie. Which is a real thing. (See Blade Runner) We see heavily promoted movies that fail every year so you are going to need a lot of excuses to support you claim that the studios are forcing people into theaters.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 29, 2017 19:25:59 GMT
So....if a movie that is marketed fails...that means either: 1-it was marketed badly 2-the studio wanted it to fail?? So you are dismissing the idea that the public just wasn't interested in the movie. No--I am specifically addressing that John Carter received a fair bit of press focus on its bad marketing of the film (no conspiracy theory attached). Disney was the studio that claimed to be savvy on marketing like no other and yet they had a very bad marketing campaign for the film (not my verdict--several media reports focused on how odd and bad the campaign was). Now is Disney stupid? I dont think so. I think for whatever reason they did not want to give the film the best marketing campaign. They didnt care if it failed. Or they wanted it to fail and go away. Why they invested money in it in the first place is beyond me. As a favor to Andrew Stanton? Shrug. But, the story is about a white male lead who goes to another culture and becomes a superman in it. I really really believe, based on modern Disney's track record with white anglo heroes, that they do not like that type of character at all. The last Pirates movie I watched had the alpha white male character tied to a mast at the beginning and dragged dying underwater in the finale. I'd love to see the anti-white male theory debunked but it hasn't been yet.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 29, 2017 20:20:25 GMT
So....if a movie that is marketed fails...that means either: 1-it was marketed badly 2-the studio wanted it to fail?? So you are dismissing the idea that the public just wasn't interested in the movie. No--I am specifically addressing that John Carter received a fair bit of press focus on its bad marketing of the film (no conspiracy theory attached). Disney was the studio that claimed to be savvy on marketing like no other and yet they had a very bad marketing campaign for the film (not my verdict--several media reports focused on how odd and bad the campaign was). Now is Disney stupid? I dont think so. I think for whatever reason they did not want to give the film the best marketing campaign. They didnt care if it failed. Or they wanted it to fail and go away. Why they invested money in it in the first place is beyond me. As a favor to Andrew Stanton? Shrug. But, the story is about a white male lead who goes to another culture and becomes a superman in it. I really really believe, based on modern Disney's track record with white anglo heroes, that they do not like that type of character at all. The last Pirates movie I watched had the alpha white male character tied to a mast at the beginning and dragged dying underwater in the finale. I'd love to see the anti-white male theory debunked but it hasn't been yet.That's because you believe it and won't hear logic. You aren't completely wrong that Hollywood is extremely left wing and they do have an antagonistic attitude toward white males, but you take it over the bounds of logic. You've got one example of a movie failing where the media claimed it was "bad marketing". Lots of assumptions follow that: 1-If a movie flops, it can only be due to bad marketing. Never mind that we get many examples every single year of movies that the public simply was not interested in despite heavy marketing. (killing your theory) 2-that a studio couldn't possibly have a bad marketing campaign without an agenda. Apparently you believe they always are successful at marketing unless they want the film to fail. You actually believe Disney spent $375 million for an agenda? 3-You follow that assumption (Disney wanted it to fail) by further attaching another assumption. Anti-white male agenda. That's two assumptions stacked on top of each other in case you weren't paying attention. A lot of your conspiracy theory is based on the idea that Disney is infallible and they can somehow force the public to buy tickets to anything. Well they fail on a regular basis: www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/john-carter-cost-disney-millions-301704I dunno...do you believe Disney "wanted those to fail" too? How deep are you willing to go into this rabbit hole? Taylor Kitsch is just not a box office draw either. Various studios tried to make him a star and it wasn't going to happen. Dude has no charisma.
|
|
|
Post by Primemovermithrax Pejorative on Oct 29, 2017 20:37:52 GMT
That's because you believe it and won't hear logic. No the problem is that you cannot provide an example to refute the theory. But its ok. I wouldnt expect you to be able to, given the monopoly in play. You got a big hill to climb. lol I agree the lead actor in John Carter had no charisma and I also think they should have chosen someone other than Michael Chabon to work on the script. They are very tribal at Disney. The lack of charisma in modern acting is a topic worthy of discussion on its own, but the subject at hand, Disney blew money on JC and didnt care. Why did they not care? Because they have money. I welcome any discussion that can disprove the idea that Disney and the other big corporations are not desperate for cash but I just dont see the evidence. Telling me you have evidence to refute a theory is not evidence. You have to provide it. There is nothing in that HR article that suggests Disney is cash starved or even operates with a concern for domestic audiences at all. In fact, this year Disney cancelled Tim Allen's show right after it came out he went to Trump inauguration. Oh sure, maybe it was just a coincidence. Maybe the reports that Allen's show was successful were false-who knows? But the initial reports said the show was doing well and it was cancelled. Another related news item was that the manager for the Dixie Chicks said any singer who attended the Trump inauguration better have a big pay day because it would be the last they get. What does that mean? I interpret it to mean that they would be punished by the media companies (one or all of the 6) and blacklisted in some way--even though many of their fans would be in the same places as Trump voters. Why would media companies reject their money? It suggests to me that ideology drives their decisions, not profit. Another intriguing situation is that FOX is allegedly the corporation of conservatives and yet they produce some of the most anti-white working class shows on television. Funny way of showing their conservativism, making Simpsons and the Family Guy. I guess they are liberal at heart.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 29, 2017 21:02:34 GMT
That's because you believe it and won't hear logic. No the problem is that you cannot provide an example to refute the theory. But its ok. I wouldnt expect you to be able to, given the monopoly in play. You got a big hill to climb. lol I'm going to need you to provide an example to prove your theory first. Lacking that...there really isn't anything to discuss. It's not my job to prove a negative to something you haven't even proven exists. I agree the lead actor in John Carter had no charisma and I also think they should have chosen someone other than Michael Chabon to work on the script. They are very tribal at Disney. The lack of charisma in modern acting is a topic worthy of discussion on its own, but the subject at hand, Disney blew money on JC and didnt care. Why did they not care? Because they have money. There is another one where you just make an assumption and act as if you don't have to prove it. Now you just claim Disney didn't care about JC because "they have money". Not sure how you imagine that makes any sense at all. And of course you ignore all the other movies that Disney promoted which failed and lost them money. You of course need those other examples to be out of the discussion because it will kill your theory. Care to tell us why Disney wanted all those other movies to fail? I welcome any discussion that can disprove the idea that Disney and the other big corporations are not desperate for cash but I just dont see the evidence. Telling me you have evidence to refute a theory is not evidence. You have to provide it. Not sure where you got the notion that other people have to "disprove your idea". Because they make money that proves your theory correct? You can't possibly believe that is a worthy argument. In fact, this year Disney cancelled Tim Allen's show right after it came out he went to Trump inauguration. Oh sure, maybe it was just a coincidence. Maybe the reports that Allen's show was successful were false-who knows? But the initial reports said the show was doing well and it was cancelled. Of course that all rests on the idea that Disney has no idea that Allen was a conservative BEFORE they created a show for him. I would not be shocked at the notion that Disney was pressured to get him off the air by Hollywood liberals. But that is a far different thing than your JC theory. Another related news item was that the manager for the Dixie Chicks said any singer who attended the Trump inauguration better have a big pay day because it would be the last they get. What does that mean? I interpret it to mean that they would be punished by the media companies (one or all of the 6) and blacklisted in some way--even though many of their fans would be in the same places as Trump voters. Why would media companies reject their money? It suggests to me that ideology drives their decisions, not profit. Another intriguing situation is that FOX is allegedly the corporation of conservatives and yet they produce some of the most anti-white working class shows on television. Funny way of showing their conservativism, making Simpsons and the Family Guy. I guess they are liberal at heart. Oh there is certainly a liberal bias in Hollywood. Conservative actors have long known they need to keep quiet about their politics if they want to keep working. But that's a different subject and is certainly not something that began recently.
|
|
|
Post by harpospoke on Oct 29, 2017 21:17:03 GMT
Kinda interesting that Thor was tracking for 125+ three days ago. Looking right now like a 108 Million opening weekend. That actually sounds more reasonable to me. It's still a Thor movie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 21:20:16 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2017 21:59:39 GMT
It was asked before but it needs to be asked again. When will critics finally say they've had enough? When does the bubble burst? I mean...if a freaking Thor movie can't kill the streak...what will? When will the DCEU become a bubble?
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Oct 31, 2017 19:15:37 GMT
My guess is simple and not exciting but most likely, burnout. Like when audiences are not as interested in this character or story as with prior installments. The variety should sustain it for a while though. Maybe phase 5 or 6.
|
|