So! Avengers: Endgame

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Eacaraxe:

Majestic Manatee:
Fans like it.

And yet, those images are case examples of how bland, hollow, and transparent the "feminist" take on Captain Marvel is, and how disingenuous the "defense" of it really is. Criticisms of the character prior to this are founded on a misapplication of gaze theory in comics, which in turn completely disregard comics' quasi-classical aesthetic tradition. By that I mean the characters are essentially drawn nude, but that nudity is censored by inking costumes onto them.

Yet here we have post-reboot Captain Marvel, in the same poses from the same angles, and in yet another skin-tight outfit that swaps flesh tones for blues and reds. Do I really need to link Girls in Yoga Pants to demonstrate exactly how facile the "aesthetic" reboot is? Whinge all you like about the 2005-2012 leotard, boots, gloves, and sash for showing skin, but that costume at least looked like she was wearing fabric because time had been taken to draw and ink relief, stitching, bunching, and texture.

The funny thing is, the short haircut is the one thing I like about MCU Captain Marvel.

Id gather that Feminists would say that the men are equally wearing body paint so it's cool. Equal opportunity etc. Etc. But thinking Feminists are a monolith is a bad assumption. There are probably Feminists who are and aren't happy with it.

I would say the old style look exactly as skin tight. The new one just covers more skin. So I don't understand you point about skin tight

Saelune:
Captain Marvel was always a feminist hero. There was just a lower bar in the 70's. Ms. in Ms.Marvel at the time was a feminist action, as it only denoted gender, and was independent of marital status, unlike Miss and Mrs. That was a big deal then. Plus she was a physically strong and independent woman.

I mentioned all this and more in the thread on Captain Marvel itself, and argued the post-2012 comic reboot (and feature film) actually represents a step backward in portrayal of women characters in fiction.

Marik2:
So what now? The new spiderman trailer is talking about parallel universes, so they can easily fit fantastic 4, xmen, and deadpool if they wanted. They just need a powerful antagonist for the next avengers movie.

Well, I mean technically endgame already dealt with parallel universes. That's how they time traveled.

Personally I waiting till the new Spider-Man comes out. Mostly cause the person claiming to be from another dimension is *Mysterio*. I wouldnt be surprised if it turned out he's not from another dimension and the elemental monsters he's fighting are simply his own creations. All to make himself look like a hero.

trunkage:

Eacaraxe:

Majestic Manatee:
Fans like it.

And yet, those images are case examples of how bland, hollow, and transparent the "feminist" take on Captain Marvel is, and how disingenuous the "defense" of it really is. Criticisms of the character prior to this are founded on a misapplication of gaze theory in comics, which in turn completely disregard comics' quasi-classical aesthetic tradition. By that I mean the characters are essentially drawn nude, but that nudity is censored by inking costumes onto them.

Yet here we have post-reboot Captain Marvel, in the same poses from the same angles, and in yet another skin-tight outfit that swaps flesh tones for blues and reds. Do I really need to link Girls in Yoga Pants to demonstrate exactly how facile the "aesthetic" reboot is? Whinge all you like about the 2005-2012 leotard, boots, gloves, and sash for showing skin, but that costume at least looked like she was wearing fabric because time had been taken to draw and ink relief, stitching, bunching, and texture.

The funny thing is, the short haircut is the one thing I like about MCU Captain Marvel.

Id gather that Feminists would say that the men are equally wearing body paint so it's cool. Equal opportunity etc. Etc. But thinking Feminists are a monolith is a bad assumption. There are probably Feminists who are and aren't happy with it.

I would say the old style look exactly as skin tight. The new one just covers more skin. So I don't understand you point about skin tight

Well, there are 'feminists' who think transsexuals are a conspiracy by men to invade women-kind.

As for clothes, 100% of admiring asses in skin-tight clothing in End Game was man ass.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
Captain Marvel was always a feminist hero. There was just a lower bar in the 70's. Ms. in Ms.Marvel at the time was a feminist action, as it only denoted gender, and was independent of marital status, unlike Miss and Mrs. That was a big deal then. Plus she was a physically strong and independent woman.

I mentioned all this and more in the thread on Captain Marvel itself, and argued the post-2012 comic reboot (and feature film) actually represents a step backward in portrayal of women characters in fiction.

Well, it isn't. Too many women and girls have been clearly encouraged and empowered by the film, too many little girls who see that they have a place in nerd/comic culture too, and that is a good thing.

Encouraging diversity works. DnD has been doing it, and DnD has managed to be a very diverse and progressive community overall. Comics need to catch up, considering they existed long before table-top RPGs did.

Saelune:

As for clothes, 100% of admiring asses in skin-tight clothing in End Game was man ass.

That's "America's arse," you dirty red. :p

Casual Shinji:
Also, just out of the blue here, but didn't anybody else find it a little weird that Hawkeye was having a casual family picnic just before the Snap happened? I mean, I know the dude is retired, but he really wasn't aware of anything that was happening on Earth prior, what with the alien attack on New York and Tony Stark going missing? You'd think he would've caught wind of that shit.

Here's the weirder part of it:
Thanos "snaps" in the middle of the day in Africa, right? Then how come it's also the middle of the day over in America?

Saelune:
Well, it isn't.

Yes, it is and this is why.

Too many women and girls have been clearly encouraged and empowered by the film, too many little girls who see that they have a place in nerd/comic culture too, and that is a good thing.

"Geekdom", or whatever the fuck you want to call it, has traditionally been a transgressive space. Part and parcel of being a counter-culture, which is what it had been up until the rise of "geek chic" in the mid-oughts.

What was the difference? Social influence from outside the "geek" community gatekept from without by framing it not as a counter-culture, but an outgrouping. Of course, the moment advertisers and marketing executives realized geeks have money too (go figure, what with the entire IT industry being of, for, and by geeks), the tune changed in order to create a culture of mindless mass consumption based around cons, merch, and a self-sustaining cycle of establishing and maintaining "geek cred" measured exclusively by degree of consumption.

Captain Marvel broke the glass ceiling? But, I thought Wonder Woman broke the glass ceiling. Except Rogue One broke the glass ceiling. No, wait, I forgot, Ghostbusters broke the glass ceiling. Nope, The Force Awakens broke the glass ceiling. That can't be right, Fury Road broke the glass ceiling. But, didn't The Hunger Games break the glass ceiling? No, it was really Resident Evil that broke the glass ceiling. Clearly, it wasn't Terminator or Alien, those are like old movies with Ms. Males or insert talking point here, and it certainly wasn't Princess Leia because gold bikinis and George told her not to wear a bra.

As it is turtles all the way down, surely it must be glass ceilings all the way up. Just never mind that the only people actually pushing the notion "geekdom" wasn't a space for women, are the same marketing/advertising class now weaponizing feminism to push women into those spaces by trucking out the same talking points year after year, demonizing and outgrouping anyone with the dreaded "sexist" label should they dare to question it. That, or women are (yet again) being marketed to by one of the most pernicious gendered social pressure (read, gaslighting) campaigns since "real women shave their armpits".

Look, if your idea of equality and inclusion is being browbeaten into corporate pay piggy status on threat of being labeled a sexist, you do you. That's not me.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
Well, it isn't.

Yes, it is and this is why.

Too many women and girls have been clearly encouraged and empowered by the film, too many little girls who see that they have a place in nerd/comic culture too, and that is a good thing.

"Geekdom", or whatever the fuck you want to call it, has traditionally been a transgressive space. Part and parcel of being a counter-culture, which is what it had been up until the rise of "geek chic" in the mid-oughts.

What was the difference? Social influence from outside the "geek" community gatekept from without by framing it not as a counter-culture, but an outgrouping. Of course, the moment advertisers and marketing executives realized geeks have money too (go figure, what with the entire IT industry being of, for, and by geeks), the tune changed in order to create a culture of mindless mass consumption based around cons, merch, and a self-sustaining cycle of establishing and maintaining "geek cred" measured exclusively by degree of consumption.

Captain Marvel broke the glass ceiling? But, I thought Wonder Woman broke the glass ceiling. Except Rogue One broke the glass ceiling. No, wait, I forgot, Ghostbusters broke the glass ceiling. Nope, The Force Awakens broke the glass ceiling. That can't be right, Fury Road broke the glass ceiling. But, didn't The Hunger Games break the glass ceiling? No, it was really Resident Evil that broke the glass ceiling. Clearly, it wasn't Terminator or Alien, those are like old movies with Ms. Males or insert talking point here, and it certainly wasn't Princess Leia because gold bikinis and George told her not to wear a bra.

As it is turtles all the way down, surely it must be glass ceilings all the way up. Just never mind that the only people actually pushing the notion "geekdom" wasn't a space for women, are the same marketing/advertising class now weaponizing feminism to push women into those spaces by trucking out the same talking points year after year, demonizing and outgrouping anyone with the dreaded "sexist" label should they dare to question it. That, or women are (yet again) being marketed to by one of the most pernicious gendered social pressure (read, gaslighting) campaigns since "real women shave their armpits".

Look, if your idea of equality and inclusion is being browbeaten into corporate pay piggy status on threat of being labeled a sexist, you do you. That's not me.

I never said Captain Marvel 'broke the glass ceiling'. I said Captain Marvel was a feminist hero from the start.

And stop pretending sexism is a new concept. Its been around forever, including in 'geek culture'. Instead of getting mad at people wanting to end sexism, get mad at sexism.

Saelune:
I never said Captain Marvel 'broke the glass ceiling'.

That is, however, how the movie's been and being marketed, your own commentary about how it inspires girls and women speaking to that, and that's the point. It's marketing.

I said Captain Marvel was a feminist hero from the start.

Carol Danvers was. The mantle...not so much. In fact, the argument could be made the period it was held by Monica Rambeau was vastly more progressive than Danvers'. And that's an argument I'd agree with, considering as I stated in the previous thread my opinion of post-2012 Captain Marvel is that it's fauxgressive trash.

Instead of getting mad at people wanting to end sexism, get mad at sexism.

I'll get mad at whomever I damn please, thank you. Especially when "people wanting to end sexism" are actively defending those who profit from it, and therefore have a vested interest in perpetuating it.

Let's take gender out of the equation for a second. I like Colin Kaepernick and strongly support both him, his stated opinions, and his right to voice them. Therefore, it deeply disappointed me when he accepted the Nike sponsorship, because Nike and its subsidies still engage in the same predatory and abusive labor practices today that it has for decades. The only thing that's changed is they have better PR, and American news media doesn't report about it. Nike offering Kaepernick the sponsorship deal was a brazen, transparent attempt on Nike's part to preemptively shield itself from criticism over its treatment of POC workers abroad, effectively weaponizing "wokeness" against itself.

Nike is by far from the only company embracing progressive politics and engaging in "woke" advertising to hide the skeletons in its closet. Remember my last post when I mentioned the ad push in the early 1900's for women to shave their legs and underarms? Gilette, the company now known for its "toxic masculinity" ad, started that shit. Coke, infamous for its Latin-American labor practices, widespread regulatory capture and government corruption, almost all of which still continue today, leads the field in woke advertising. And, of course, Google...oh, Google. Hell, Alphabet in sum.

And of course, this "new wave" in woke advertising came during, or shortly after, #MeToo started. The figure around whom the movement coalesced, Weinstein, being an outspoken "feminist" and avid "supporter" of feminist causes. Just like so many other Hollywood figures who faced allegations of sexual misconduct. In light of that, why shouldn't I try to judge for myself who and what actually move progressive causes forward, as opposed to those who would parasitize them, predate upon progressives, or attempt to divide and conquer through subversive marketing strategies?

And thus, I loop back to my original point that "feminism" in popular culture is really anything but. The individuals perpetuating and signal boosting these controversies -- on either side -- profit from them in the form of clicks, page and video views, and ad revenue. Why else is it the lion's share of ink spilled over the "controversies" surrounding Brie Larson and Captain Marvel lies with clickbaiters and op-ed writers? They have no interest in "ending" sexism; in fact, their financial interest lies in perpetuating it.

Why are you mad that people enjoy things

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
I never said Captain Marvel 'broke the glass ceiling'.

That is, however, how the movie's been and being marketed, your own commentary about how it inspires girls and women speaking to that, and that's the point. It's marketing.

Citation needed on this marketing thing. Particularly how this was done different to, say, Iron Man or Black Panther. Was it that they turned her into hero?

Of all the heroes to fight Thanos, the two that give him most trouble are Captain Marvel and Scarlet Witch, both of whom were directly empowered by Infinity Stones. Anyone else enjoy the symbolism of Thanos almost literally getting overwhelmed by representations of his obsession?

Johnny Novgorod:

Casual Shinji:
Also, just out of the blue here, but didn't anybody else find it a little weird that Hawkeye was having a casual family picnic just before the Snap happened? I mean, I know the dude is retired, but he really wasn't aware of anything that was happening on Earth prior, what with the alien attack on New York and Tony Stark going missing? You'd think he would've caught wind of that shit.

Here's the weirder part of it:
Thanos "snaps" in the middle of the day in Africa, right? Then how come it's also the middle of the day over in America?

I can usually overlook inconsistencies like that. I didn't even have any real problem with the time travel rules (which apparently are all over the place), but it did bother me greatly that it was used for the movie to spin its wheels for like an hour.

undeadsuitor:
Why are you mad that people enjoy things

Am I mad? Or are YOU mad?

Think about it...

Palindromemordnilap:
Anyone else enjoy the symbolism of Thanos almost literally getting overwhelmed by representations of his obsession?

No, because both instances are too short to mean anything, and Carol's holding the idiot ball during the fight.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
I never said Captain Marvel 'broke the glass ceiling'.

That is, however, how the movie's been and being marketed, your own commentary about how it inspires girls and women speaking to that, and that's the point. It's marketing.

I said Captain Marvel was a feminist hero from the start.

Carol Danvers was. The mantle...not so much. In fact, the argument could be made the period it was held by Monica Rambeau was vastly more progressive than Danvers'. And that's an argument I'd agree with, considering as I stated in the previous thread my opinion of post-2012 Captain Marvel is that it's fauxgressive trash.

Instead of getting mad at people wanting to end sexism, get mad at sexism.

I'll get mad at whomever I damn please, thank you. Especially when "people wanting to end sexism" are actively defending those who profit from it, and therefore have a vested interest in perpetuating it.

Let's take gender out of the equation for a second. I like Colin Kaepernick and strongly support both him, his stated opinions, and his right to voice them. Therefore, it deeply disappointed me when he accepted the Nike sponsorship, because Nike and its subsidies still engage in the same predatory and abusive labor practices today that it has for decades. The only thing that's changed is they have better PR, and American news media doesn't report about it. Nike offering Kaepernick the sponsorship deal was a brazen, transparent attempt on Nike's part to preemptively shield itself from criticism over its treatment of POC workers abroad, effectively weaponizing "wokeness" against itself.

Nike is by far from the only company embracing progressive politics and engaging in "woke" advertising to hide the skeletons in its closet. Remember my last post when I mentioned the ad push in the early 1900's for women to shave their legs and underarms? Gilette, the company now known for its "toxic masculinity" ad, started that shit. Coke, infamous for its Latin-American labor practices, widespread regulatory capture and government corruption, almost all of which still continue today, leads the field in woke advertising. And, of course, Google...oh, Google. Hell, Alphabet in sum.

And of course, this "new wave" in woke advertising came during, or shortly after, #MeToo started. The figure around whom the movement coalesced, Weinstein, being an outspoken "feminist" and avid "supporter" of feminist causes. Just like so many other Hollywood figures who faced allegations of sexual misconduct. In light of that, why shouldn't I try to judge for myself who and what actually move progressive causes forward, as opposed to those who would parasitize them, predate upon progressives, or attempt to divide and conquer through subversive marketing strategies?

And thus, I loop back to my original point that "feminism" in popular culture is really anything but. The individuals perpetuating and signal boosting these controversies -- on either side -- profit from them in the form of clicks, page and video views, and ad revenue. Why else is it the lion's share of ink spilled over the "controversies" surrounding Brie Larson and Captain Marvel lies with clickbaiters and op-ed writers? They have no interest in "ending" sexism; in fact, their financial interest lies in perpetuating it.

Marketing towards progress is a good thing. Marketing isn't going away, it could atleast be used for good rather than evil. You can pretend marketing is your excuse, but I doubt it.

Again, I am not arguing what you think I am arguing. I am arguing that Ms. Marvel was always a feminist hero. I never said she was the most feminist hero, so stop pretending I am.

In the US, money talks. It is the only reason anyone ever gave a fuck about Trump until he decided to go full White Supremacist. If money is what it will take for progress, so be it.

There is only one side supporting feminism.

We have what it takes to end sexism. You and me. It is not just on the celebrities or the journalists or politicians. It can end with us 'common people'.

Hawki:

undeadsuitor:
Why are you mad that people enjoy things

Am I mad? Or are YOU mad?

Think about it...

Palindromemordnilap:
Anyone else enjoy the symbolism of Thanos almost literally getting overwhelmed by representations of his obsession?

No, because both instances are too short to mean anything, and Carol's holding the idiot ball during the fight.

You're right, I am mad that people enjoy oppressing women.

undeadsuitor:
Personally I waiting till the new Spider-Man comes out. Mostly cause the person claiming to be from another dimension is *Mysterio*. I wouldnt be surprised if it turned out he's not from another dimension and the elemental monsters he's fighting are simply his own creations. All to make himself look like a hero.

Probably, yeah. Mysterio's shtick in all incarnations I know of is villain who uses special effects wizardry and other make-believe tricks to fuck with people's heads and make himself appear superpowered (which he generally isn't). There have probably been storyline where he used his shtick to make himself look the hero.

Thing is, everyone with some savviness about spidey villains will expect this, so if it were me, I'd subvert it somehow. Maybe the real Mysterio is playing everyone, Jake Gyllenhaal is not in on it, and he's just a regular dude who's made to believe he's a superhero, just like everyone else. Or maybe have a third party manipulate Spidey into thinking Gyllenhaal is a villain, even tho he's actually a genuine hero (maybe with a dark secret to make him seem suspicious to the audience).

Probably not gonna happen, but it'd be neat if the MCU got a villain that completely takes me by surprise. Iron Man 3 tried it with the Mandarin, but it didn't work for me because the MCU then was still big on the "evil corporate executive" trope and Killian just screamed it.

Hawki:

Palindromemordnilap:
Anyone else enjoy the symbolism of Thanos almost literally getting overwhelmed by representations of his obsession?

No, because both instances are too short to mean anything, and Carol's holding the idiot ball during the fight.

Aw c'mon, you gotta enjoy some surface level symbolism like that! Like how the Gauntlet the Avengers make is a right-handed one to deliberately counter Thanos' left-handed or 'sinister' Gauntlet. These people didn't get English degrees for nothing you know XD

Saelune:
Marketing towards progress is a good thing. Marketing isn't going away, it could atleast be used for good rather than evil. You can pretend marketing is your excuse, but I doubt it.

You know, at this point I'm going to indulge myself a bit of a tangent. Your words here remind me of the shit I said 20-25 years ago when, as a high school I did the state legislature page circuit, volunteered for my local Democratic party, did all the glad-handing and canvassing, wrote the local papers, help fund raise, spoke out for issues I believed in at the time, and more.

To paraphrase my younger self, "globalizing towards progress is a good thing. Globalization isn't going away, it could at least be used for good rather than evil. You can pretend trade protectionism is your excuse, but I doubt it."

Then I got into college and was expected to be a big boy, and read for myself what "our guys" down south (like Pinochet) had really been up to for the past few decades, the ongoing pernicious effect NAFTA had on the Mexican and American economies and the circumstances behind its passing, the actual impact of Washington consensus policies on post-Soviet economies, and the realities of multi-national business ethics abroad. But most importantly, how all of that bore no semblance to "reality" as it was presented to Americans by our own media, to make us all feel good and righteous about American economic and military hegemony, how justified America is in playing world police, and how America and American corporations are proudly blazing the path to global capitalist utopia, regardless of outlet or those outlets' inherent biases.

To say that if I had the opportunity to go back in time and bitch slap some reality into my teenage self, I would, is the understatement of the century.

No, "marketing towards progress" is not a good thing, because your idea of "progress" is not corporations' idea of "progress". No, marketing is unlikely to go away, but it will never, ever be a force for good. You're only being tricked into thinking it can be.

It is the only reason anyone ever gave a fuck about Trump until he decided to go full White Supremacist.

Five billion dollars.

That's the amount of earned media that went to Trump during the 2016 election, counting primary and general. Depending on source, $5.6-5.9 billion if you go all the way back to June, 2015, when he first announced his bid.

Earned media is defined as the reporting, editorializing, and discussion of a given topic (in this case, Trump's candidacy), separate from sponsored/paid media in the form of direct advertisement. A talking head goes on TV and yells about Trump for ten minutes, that's earned media. Here's the key: earned media is quantified by estimating the value of ad buys during coverage of said topic, in other words it's an index of said topic's profitability, as it's how much income an outlet made covering it.

For 2016, Hillary received approximately $3.4 billion in earned media. That's about $8.4-9.4 billion total. Compared to the estimated $2.4 billion of hard and soft money, and independent expenditure, of 2016 for both candidates put together. To put that in perspective, 2012 was a $4 billion election, with about a 50/50 split in paid/earned media.

To say the amount of earned media Trump received was staggeringly unprecedented is the understatement of the decade. So unprecedented one cannot help but ask themselves, what led to this? The most straightforward answer is damning enough: Trump shot his mouth off, news outlets covered it, ratings and ad revenue went through the fuckin' roof, so news outlets just kept giving the people what they obviously wanted--a reality television show where the grand prize is access to the nuclear football--and laughed all the way to the bank. Just like they still are.

But, the truth's actually a little deeper than that. As our current media landscape stands, the last I checked, four multi-nationals control over 90% of media consumed by Americans: Disney, AT&T, National Amusements/Viacom, and Comcast. The Disney/Fox merger went through, relegating NewsCorp to also-ran status, and the AT&T/Time Warner merger went through. You might talk about the FANG's, but the truth is when it comes to big media, despite FANG's considerable size and reach, they're very tiny fish in a massive ocean. Three years ago (i.e. before the election) it was six.

Of course, we still have the handful of "old media" holdouts which nowadays are tech billionaires' vanity projects. So, here's the real funny thing. You just made an entire thread about access restrictions by the Trump administration...whose access is being limited? Are outlets owned by those four MNC's being targeted?

So who were the biggest beneficiaries of Trump admin deregulation and tax "reform"? The same people who put him in office on the back of five billion dollars' worth of earned media, that's who. You want to talk about fascism, there's your fucking fascism.

But please, do go on talking about how progressive Disney and its subsidiaries are.

I shed some tears when captain murica went back to get married.

Eacaraxe:

Saelune:
Marketing towards progress is a good thing. Marketing isn't going away, it could atleast be used for good rather than evil. You can pretend marketing is your excuse, but I doubt it.

You know, at this point I'm going to indulge myself a bit of a tangent. Your words here remind me of the shit I said 20-25 years ago when, as a high school I did the state legislature page circuit, volunteered for my local Democratic party, did all the glad-handing and canvassing, wrote the local papers, help fund raise, spoke out for issues I believed in at the time, and more.

To paraphrase my younger self, "globalizing towards progress is a good thing. Globalization isn't going away, it could at least be used for good rather than evil. You can pretend trade protectionism is your excuse, but I doubt it."

Then I got into college and was expected to be a big boy, and read for myself what "our guys" down south (like Pinochet) had really been up to for the past few decades, the ongoing pernicious effect NAFTA had on the Mexican and American economies and the circumstances behind its passing, the actual impact of Washington consensus policies on post-Soviet economies, and the realities of multi-national business ethics abroad. But most importantly, how all of that bore no semblance to "reality" as it was presented to Americans by our own media, to make us all feel good and righteous about American economic and military hegemony, how justified America is in playing world police, and how America and American corporations are proudly blazing the path to global capitalist utopia, regardless of outlet or those outlets' inherent biases.

To say that if I had the opportunity to go back in time and bitch slap some reality into my teenage self, I would, is the understatement of the century.

No, "marketing towards progress" is not a good thing, because your idea of "progress" is not corporations' idea of "progress". No, marketing is unlikely to go away, but it will never, ever be a force for good. You're only being tricked into thinking it can be.

It is the only reason anyone ever gave a fuck about Trump until he decided to go full White Supremacist.

Five billion dollars.

That's the amount of earned media that went to Trump during the 2016 election, counting primary and general. Depending on source, $5.6-5.9 billion if you go all the way back to June, 2015, when he first announced his bid.

Earned media is defined as the reporting, editorializing, and discussion of a given topic (in this case, Trump's candidacy), separate from sponsored/paid media in the form of direct advertisement. A talking head goes on TV and yells about Trump for ten minutes, that's earned media. Here's the key: earned media is quantified by estimating the value of ad buys during coverage of said topic, in other words it's an index of said topic's profitability, as it's how much income an outlet made covering it.

For 2016, Hillary received approximately $3.4 billion in earned media. That's about $8.4-9.4 billion total. Compared to the estimated $2.4 billion of hard and soft money, and independent expenditure, of 2016 for both candidates put together. To put that in perspective, 2012 was a $4 billion election, with about a 50/50 split in paid/earned media.

To say the amount of earned media Trump received was staggeringly unprecedented is the understatement of the decade. So unprecedented one cannot help but ask themselves, what led to this? The most straightforward answer is damning enough: Trump shot his mouth off, news outlets covered it, ratings and ad revenue went through the fuckin' roof, so news outlets just kept giving the people what they obviously wanted--a reality television show where the grand prize is access to the nuclear football--and laughed all the way to the bank. Just like they still are.

But, the truth's actually a little deeper than that. As our current media landscape stands, the last I checked, four multi-nationals control over 90% of media consumed by Americans: Disney, AT&T, National Amusements/Viacom, and Comcast. The Disney/Fox merger went through, relegating NewsCorp to also-ran status, and the AT&T/Time Warner merger went through. You might talk about the FANG's, but the truth is when it comes to big media, despite FANG's considerable size and reach, they're very tiny fish in a massive ocean. Three years ago (i.e. before the election) it was six.

Of course, we still have the handful of "old media" holdouts which nowadays are tech billionaires' vanity projects. So, here's the real funny thing. You just made an entire thread about access restrictions by the Trump administration...whose access is being limited? Are outlets owned by those four MNC's being targeted?

So who were the biggest beneficiaries of Trump admin deregulation and tax "reform"? The same people who put him in office on the back of five billion dollars' worth of earned media, that's who. You want to talk about fascism, there's your fucking fascism.

But please, do go on talking about how progressive Disney and its subsidiaries are.

And how does this make female Superheroes a bad thing? I know you're trying to confuse me, but that was the topic.

Marik2:
I shed some tears when captain murica went back to get married.

Peggy deserved America's ass

trunkage:

But Captain America 1 was a jingoistic, self-righteous, pompous propaganda machine that is like watching Trump speak. Feels over reals. The worst part is that my daughter is getting old enough to start seeing these movies, and I'm going to have to watch that turd burger again soon. I'm not looking forward to it.

As someone who likes to take potshots against murica and western civilization, that is the dumbest description of the first captain america movie. They specifically made the movie to not offend the global audience, because everyone hates America. That's why Cap doesn't fight actual Nazis, the swastika isn't featured(only for a second), and he doesn't fight in actual historical places.

Palindromemordnilap:

Aw c'mon, you gotta enjoy some surface level symbolism like that! Like how the Gauntlet the Avengers make is a right-handed one to deliberately counter Thanos' left-handed or 'sinister' Gauntlet. These people didn't get English degrees for nothing you know XD

There might be a oneshot idea there actually.

...what? This thread got me to write 3000 words explaining when, how, and why Carol got a haircut between Infinity War and Endgame.

undeadsuitor:

Peggy deserved America's ass

A Brit kissing America's arse.

...political analogy?

Marik2:

trunkage:

But Captain America 1 was a jingoistic, self-righteous, pompous propaganda machine that is like watching Trump speak. Feels over reals. The worst part is that my daughter is getting old enough to start seeing these movies, and I'm going to have to watch that turd burger again soon. I'm not looking forward to it.

As someone who likes to take potshots against murica and western civilization, that is the dumbest description of the first captain america movie. They specifically made the movie to not offend the global audience, because everyone hates America. That's why Cap doesn't fight actual Nazis, the swastika isn't featured(only for a second), and he doesn't fight in actual historical places.

It also has a German Jewish scientist say the first place the Nazis invaded was Germany.

For a movie called captain America that featured a 5 minute musical number of him punching Hitler, it was incredibly even handed and fair.

Which is why he had to fight and kill evil science space fascists instead of like....drafted underage scared German teens

undeadsuitor:

For a movie called captain America that featured a 5 minute musical number of him punching Hitler, it was incredibly even handed and fair.

Even handed and fair? What's to be fair about? Hydra are, like, uber-Nazis. They're Nazis that are so evil that the film distinguishes them from Germany and the natural Nazis so they can be slaughtered without any kind of self-reflection. They have laser guns FFS!

Whatever the first Cap movie is (a pile of meh in my case, but whatever), it certainly isn't subtle.

Which is why he had to fight and kill evil science space fascists instead of like....drafted underage scared German teens

Well, yeah, sure, but avoiding controversy is the easy way out.

Not that the film's trying to be in-depth about anything mind you.

So, finally seen Avengeancemen: This is the end, and... it was good. A nice conclusion(finally!) to this whole 10 year trip.

It was, as told, chock full of fanservice. But, the kind of fanservice that didn't get obnoxious, and felt... earned? Unlike some other Disney properties(*cough cough* I clapped when i saw Darth Vader *cough cough* Ready Player One).
The amount of comedy and heartstring pulls that did, and didn't land, was about on par with other MCU movies. Although, those that should count, imho, did at least.
Might be thanks to the important stuff not being spoiled to me(some of the fluff still was, like Thor Lebowski), why it left bigger emotional impact than Infinity War. Or maybe it was the silver screen magic?
Or maybe i liked it so much, because after all these movies, this one actually felt like an ending?

PS. I don't care what Feige says about "Far From Home". You don't get to claim that "Oh but it's not the REAL ending", after having THOSE kind of credits.

PPS. To stay in the spirit of these forums: A fistful of nitpicks...
- Did the Yakuza man really had to pull a freakin' katana on Hawkeye? Even for this kind of movie that felt too on the nose.
- The kid playing Stark's daughter: Cute, but can't act.
- The elephant in the room, Captain Marvel. I actually didn't have as many problems with her, as other people. I understand why writers decided to get rid of the tactical nuke, so the rest of our heroes could get a decent farewell... But i think it could be done in better way "I have shit to do on the other side of universe, baiiiiii...".

Eacaraxe:
snip

Hey... But think about it: We gonna have X-Men and DP in the MCU.
That makes things perfectly balanced, right?

Marik2:

trunkage:

But Captain America 1 was a jingoistic, self-righteous, pompous propaganda machine that is like watching Trump speak. Feels over reals. The worst part is that my daughter is getting old enough to start seeing these movies, and I'm going to have to watch that turd burger again soon. I'm not looking forward to it.

As someone who likes to take potshots against murica and western civilization, that is the dumbest description of the first captain america movie. They specifically made the movie to not offend the global audience, because everyone hates America. That's why Cap doesn't fight actual Nazis, the swastika isn't featured(only for a second), and he doesn't fight in actual historical places.

Its not about being anti-America. I won't care if this was about America, Germany, Russia or Britian. It's patriotism, Trump style (all though many people do this, he's just the most prolific at the moment). Seeing pop songs about Putin or Kim Jong-Un is pretty bad as well, It's indoctrination. It's fanatical. It's believing in something so much you'd die for it, irrelevant of whether it wrong or not. It makes sure that everyone knows there place and you cant step outside that space. (Which is funny becuase Captain America 2 is probably my favourite MCU movie becuase it is the polar opposite of CA1). Hydra from CA2 feels like an extension of the America represented in CA1, just with less killing innocents.

Red Skull saying he was more evil than Hitler was the point that just took me out of the movie. Also, not many people during WW2 thought Hitler was a super villain like we do today. No one knew about concentration camps til the war almost ended. It shocked the armies on both sides of the conflict. Hitler wa just seen as aggressive and anti-Semetic, but then so was places like Russia. For almost a decade, he just pushed Jews out of the country, not collect them all for gassing. Racial purity was a pretty stamdard thought at the time, and wasn't exclusive to Germany.

But I'm a person who is very against things like the pledge of allegiance. Forcing people to act a certain way deletes all individualism. It's anti-Freedom, anti-Free Speech and feels so 1984-esque. It's assimilating Westerners into only one interpretation of 'The West' or 'America'. I gather it's like the threat people feel that causes them to use the term Cultraul Marxists, the Lefty version of this. I'm also against car ads telling me what freedom is, becuase clearly they have a very different understanding of freedom to me.

I'm not against patriotism. But unquestioned patriotism is bad for everyone.

Eacaraxe:

But please, do go on talking about how progressive Disney and its subsidiaries are.

Who's saying this?

Was is Saelune? They stated that marketers are going to advertise, no matter what we do. May as well encourage them not to be assholes. They didn't say they could, they should we should try. Which tells me Saelune highly doubts Disney intentions but is resigned to the fact that's just how the world works. I'm sure Saelune will tell me if I misread this situation.

Otherwise, who is say Disney is the good here?

Eacaraxe:

As it is turtles all the way down, surely it must be glass ceilings all the way up. Just never mind that the only people actually pushing the notion "geekdom" wasn't a space for women, are the same marketing/advertising class now weaponizing feminism to push women into those spaces by trucking out the same talking points year after year, demonizing and outgrouping anyone with the dreaded "sexist" label should they dare to question it. That, or women are (yet again) being marketed to by one of the most pernicious gendered social pressure (read, gaslighting) campaigns since "real women shave their armpits".

Look, if your idea of equality and inclusion is being browbeaten into corporate pay piggy status on threat of being labeled a sexist, you do you. That's not me.

I'm going to be very blunt with you. The idea that geekdom is a safe place for women is one of the most utterly laughable things I've heard in a long time. I haven't forgotten people freaking out over "fake gamer girls" yet. This is still a medium that panders primarily to hetero men, and suggesting that we move away from that is easily one of the most reliable way to get people to throw shit fits. My best friends regularly tells me the kind of shit she gets from this community. So you painting this as the poor women being taken advantage of by nefarious corporations is just absurd. Generally speaking, female audiences like Captain Marvel, and it wasn't because they were brainwashed by marketing. It feels more like they just like what she's selling. You've been arguing with a woman who likes Captain Marvel. Do you think she was just tricked?

Also, everyone who didn't like Captain Marvel was labeled as an EVIL SEXIST BY MARKETING! Except not really.

MrCalavera:

Hey... But think about it: We gonna have X-Men and DP in the MCU.

Who's DP?

Also, said it before, I'll say it again, the X-Men being in the MCU is a terrible idea. I'd much rather the X-Men films just do their own thing, because while I'm not their biggest fan (Logan aside), it's still more palatable than the alternative of "oh no, mutants! We've never seen people with superpowers before, let's hate them despite loving creatures like Hulk and Thor!"

Hawki:

MrCalavera:

Hey... But think about it: We gonna have X-Men and DP in the MCU.

Who's DP?

Deadpool

Hawki:

MrCalavera:

Hey... But think about it: We gonna have X-Men and DP in the MCU.

Who's DP?

Ryan Reynolds.

I agree about X-men, though. Disney doesn't need them. The setting and tone MCU does, doesn't lend itself to stuff X-Men usually deal with. And they're certainly not worth Fox merger.

Palindromemordnilap:
Aw c'mon, you gotta enjoy some surface level symbolism like that! Like how the Gauntlet the Avengers make is a right-handed one to deliberately counter Thanos' left-handed or 'sinister' Gauntlet. These people didn't get English degrees for nothing you know XD

To double up on that, in occult circles in some traditions the "left hand path" is seen as malevolent and the "right hand path" as benevolent. In others, the "left hand path" is associated with violating taboos and abandoning set codes of morality, while the "right hand path" follows social conventions and fixed moral codes.

Also the reason why Elpihas Levi's depiction of Baphomet has the right hand raised giving the gesture of benediction and the left lowered in it's inverse.

MrCalavera:

Hey... But think about it: We gonna have X-Men and DP in the MCU.
That makes things perfectly balanced, right?

I don't think that Deadpool would be a good fit for the MCU. The MCU is firmly entrenched as a PG-13 franchise. They don't seem to stray too far into moral ambiguity or bloody violence (very little, if any bloodshed) and their brand of humor hovers solidly around 'family-friendly' fare.
Deadpool is strictly an R-rated character. The humorous parts of the movies are in no way family-friendly, the violence is always graphic and bloody, and the serious parts of the movies are far to dark for a PG-13 setting (in my opinion at least). And to water Deadpool down to a PG-13 rating would do a disservice to both the character and to all the people who worked for years to get an R-rated Deapool movie into theaters.
That's not even getting into the issues that might pop up in trying to get any version or appearance of Deadpool cleared to air in China, who have severely strict rules and regulations for foreign movies. I doubt Marvel will be willing to risk money from the Chinese movie market to throw Deadpool into their mix.

The only way I can see Deadpool working in the MCU is in a brief cameo where he realizes that he can't swear (he gets bleeped out every time he tries), maybe a mention of no nudity, then angrily declares that he's going back to Fox and storms off-screen.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here