Avengers: Infinity War

[keg in kc]

(Thinking we've abused the Civil War thread enough...)

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by DaFace

While giving Disney even more power is a bit unsettling, I am curious to see if they ever try to bring the X-Men or Deadpool into the MCU somehow. I can't really picture how it would work well, but those guys get paid a lot more than I do.

your going to have a handful of companies controlling all entertainment and internet access. I’m sure this is going to work out well for consumers.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by banecat

What's the answer? You people are so great at pointing out problems, some real and some not. How to fix this one?

...What would I do about a lack of female directors, producers, film critics and the like?

Hire more women directors, producers, film critics and the like. I think that's probably a fair solution.

[007]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

your going to have a handful of companies controlling all entertainment and internet access. I’m sure this is going to work out well for consumers.

Monopolies are evil.

[RunKC]

Spoiler!

Apparently the beginnng of A4 is 5 years after Infinity War.

[cabletech94]

Originally Posted by RunKC

Spoiler!

Apparently the beginnng of A4 is 5 years after Infinity War.

ohhhhhhhhh shit!

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

...What would I do about a lack of female directors, producers, film critics and the like?

Hire more women directors, producers, film critics and the like. I think that's probably a fair solution.

Diversity is a modern day soft term for affirmative action.

You don't get the best person for the job, but rather hire someone solely on their skin color.

But now it's morphed into gender and even sexual orientation, because the women and gays on the progressive left have lost their god damn minds.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

Diversity is a modern day soft term for affirmative action.

You don't get the best person for the job, but rather hire someone solely on their skin color.

But now it's morphed into gender and even sexual orientation, because the women and gays on the progressive left have lost their god damn minds.

Or maybe it's because there's a market for films starring characters who aren't straight, white men (see Black Panther). Movie studios are in the business of making money - not doing things just to make a political statement.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Or maybe it's because there's a market for films starring characters who aren't straight, white men (see Black Panther). Movie studios are in the business of making money - not doing things just to make a political statement.

Black Panther had a much larger platform and was a giant puzzle piece to a larger overall picture of the MCU. Not only that but black people were already a big part of the entertainment industry.

And people need to realize that blacks make up about 13% of the US population and gays make up about only 2%. So when people say "we need more blacks in this field, or more gays in that field"...why? Consumers aren't asking for it. Look at the demographics of what is represented in this country. If they're good enough at what they do and are the best person for the job great, but that's not what's happening.

I dont think customers are sitting at home saying "Man I wish more gay people were in movies." Hollywood may be trying to force that down people's throats (and they are, you can't watch a TV sitcom now without having the alpha male/father in just about every show is a bumbling idiot while they promote homosexuality in front of your kids), but I certainly do not believe people are asking for it.

I really don't think you can put these 2 in the same boat.

[Tribal Warfare]

RUMOR: The title of the fourth 'Avengers' film may just have been revealed as AVENGERS: END GAME on cinematographer Trent Opaloch's personal website. https://t.co/twWi1RoNKE pic.twitter.com/jGZqI1cxnu

— MCU News & Tweets (@MCU_Tweets) June 30, 2018

[cabletech94]

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare

RUMOR: The title of the fourth 'Avengers' film may just have been revealed as AVENGERS: END GAME on cinematographer Trent Opaloch's personal website. https://t.co/twWi1RoNKE pic.twitter.com/jGZqI1cxnu

— MCU News & Tweets (@MCU_Tweets) June 30, 2018

well, doctor strange did say "this is the endgame" to tony stark.

[JD10367]

Looking through tonight’s channel listings, I saw “Iron Man” is on. And I noted that it came out in 2008. Let that sink in. 10 short years. Think of the Marvel universe since then. So many films, so many characters, so much money. Now think of Star Wars. Even if you didn’t mind the Ewoks and consider the third film, “Return of the Jedi”, to be the last high point, that film came out in... 1983. 35 ****ing years ago. Yes, “Rogue One” was a nice little story. Yes, “The Force Awakens” did make a boatload of money (even though IMO it sucked). But they’ve had 35 years to get it right, and look where they’re at. Compared to what Marvel has done in 10 short years. It’s sick.

[JD10367]

Almost 17 Billion (with a B) worldwide in a decade.

[MarkDavis'Haircut]

Originally Posted by Tribal Warfare

RUMOR: The title of the fourth 'Avengers' film may just have been revealed as AVENGERS: END GAME on cinematographer Trent Opaloch's personal website. https://t.co/twWi1RoNKE pic.twitter.com/jGZqI1cxnu

— MCU News & Tweets (@MCU_Tweets) June 30, 2018

Sounds like the title of a free mobile game.

[Bowser]

How the hell did Iron Man3 make 1.2 billion?

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

I dont think customers are sitting at home saying "Man I wish more gay people were in movies." Hollywood may be trying to force that down people's throats (and they are, you can't watch a TV sitcom now without having the alpha male/father in just about every show is a bumbling idiot while they promote homosexuality in front of your kids), but I certainly do not believe people are asking for it.

I really don't think you can put these 2 in the same boat.

I think this is where there's a disconnect. You can't turn somebody gay or straight or bi or any of the other multitude of sexual identities by 'promoting' sexuality in any way on screen. People are what they are. It's that simple, and the agenda, if it has to be said there is one, is to get society to the point where people are okay with that, and can accept each other for who we are. And I think it's less about having more gay people depicted, but making a few of the bigger characters something other than straight. And then not quickly killing them off, which is something that's happened with lesbian characters in particular over and over. And It's about having having characters who don't fit the traditional race/gender/sex binary who can eventualky grow to be more than just identified as 'that gay one'. You know, a competent hero who just happens to like different things than me (straight white dude). Where being different becomes less important than being the hero. That doesn't really happen much now in media and it's NOT in any way representative of the real world, where, 2% of the pop gay or not, a lot of important people are not straight.

I could talk more but I want bbq.

Oh and as a middle aged white guy, I agree with how we're often depicted, but hey, we have almost a century of visual media (ie tv and film) depicting us as the center of the universe and we've basically spent that entire time holding every other race and gender under our bootheel in Hollywood, so I can understand the pushback now. Like it or not, our cultural progenitors were the bad guy. It's come to Jesus time for the powerful racist, misogynistic white Hollywood overlords. Hopefully the scales balance relatively quickly and I don't spend the rest of my life being identified with the bad guys. But at this point, white dudes got zero business playing any victim cards. At all.

As for how men in general and/or bumbling dads are depicted, well...duh. Women are the target market. Of course we're portrayed as morons...