How Would You Save The Marvel Brand?

[Cap2024]

This is really the core of why this entire argument is nonsense.

Comic Book 'A list' - even if that did always describe the Avengers, which is debatable - has nothing to do with movie success.

Characters there were B list until they had a hit movie like Black Panther and especially GotG are indisputable proof that B list characters can hit big when handled well.

But most importantly:

There is no such thing as a B list character who can 'clearly' and 'obviously' become A list with the right treatment. There never has been. B list characters only become A list because someone takes a chance on them - and that's never guaranteed or easy. And there is also no such thing as an A list character who is 'guaranteed to do well and strike a chord with audiences'.

Even Batman still bombed once. The closest you will ever get to this ideal based on cinematic history is Spider-man - but while he has so far been seemingly insulated from financial consequences, people still largely hated ASM2 so much the studio was afraid of going ahead with ASM3. And even then, you can't go around chasing Spider-man with every new franchise under the sun because the vast majority of them simply can't be as successful as Spider-man is. There isn't room for that many franchises at the very top. The vast majority of them by definition will be lower down the ladder, where success is clearly never guaranteed even with a popular character.

I hold by the smartest business move being playing things safe for now with heroes audiences are known to love and gravitate to as to re-establish solid ground with the masses.

And then, once the dust is more settled, experiment.

I never said stop experimenting (which you somehow took from it). What I said was - play it safe and then take risks again.

There is a difference. What I’m proposing is actually - a very standard business practice:

Re-establish trust to remind audiences why they love the brand prior to taking risks. This way audiences are more likely to follow a company in taking those risks; and therefore risks have a higher chance at taking off.

This is why one of Iger’s first steps was to highlight old beloved classic franchises and to put those at the forefront when he returned.

Adding: there is an obvious business reason why Iger highlighted this soon after returning (doing so isn’t a popular notion to those who want to keep immediately experimenting, but there is a reason for it) -

‘Frozen’, ’Toy Story’ & ‘Zootopia’ Sequels In The Works, Disney CEO Bob Iger Says

Animated sequels to ‘Toy Story,’ ‘Frozen’ and ‘Zootopia ‘are in the works, Disney CEO Bob Iger announced on the February 8 Q1 earnings call.

deadline.com

 

[ALittlePush]

I would introduce the X-Men characters as civilians in various movies and shows before the big joining the X-Men and teaming up movie in order to make the shows feel more connected to each other.

The shows would focus on the street level heroes (and possibly Spiderman and the low level crime fighting because he's in new York and so are other heroes). The shows should add to the MCU if people choose to watch them but they shouldn't be necessary viewing to make sense of the movies.

I'd introduce Rogue and kill off Captain Marvel.

Bring established characters back to the forefront and trim some of the side characters. In the early days, every hero had their roster:
Ironman Had Pepper and Happy
Thor had Loki, Selvig, Jane and Darcy
Spider Man had Aunt May, MJ and Ned with a crossover of Happy and Tony Stark
Captain America had Bucky and Falcon etc
Obviously characters will come and go, but give a proper changing of the guard rather than just dropping one set of sidekicks for another.

 

[psylockolussus]

Rogue killing Capt. Marvel would be a bad idea.

 

[SPO2 Dalisay]

There is another who could get Captain Marvel's powers sucked out of her. Rogue might be smart enough to know you don't have to show other stuff when you can do what Carol Danvers can

 

[Lily Adler]

I would introduce the X-Men characters as civilians in various movies and shows before the big joining the X-Men and teaming up movie in order to make the shows feel more connected to each other.

The shows would focus on the street level heroes (and possibly Spiderman and the low level crime fighting because he's in new York and so are other heroes). The shows should add to the MCU if people choose to watch them but they shouldn't be necessary viewing to make sense of the movies.

I'd introduce Rogue and kill off Captain Marvel.

Bring established characters back to the forefront and trim some of the side characters. In the early days, every hero had their roster:
Ironman Had Pepper and Happy
Thor had Loki, Selvig, Jane and Darcy
Spider Man had Aunt May, MJ and Ned with a crossover of Happy and Tony Stark
Captain America had Bucky and Falcon etc
Obviously characters will come and go, but give a proper changing of the guard rather than just dropping one set of sidekicks for another.

Why the **** would Carol need to die? Rogue can get those powers another way without killing her. Hell I think the common consensus was the storyline behind Rogue getting Captain Marvel's powers was stupid.

 

[ALittlePush]

Why the fork would Carol need to die? Rogue can get those powers another way without killing her. bad place I think the common consensus was the storyline behind Rogue getting Captain Marvel's powers was stupid.

TAS is the only version of Rogue getting Carol Danvers' powers that I know because I don't read the comics. Rather than just sticking Brie Larson's captain Marvel in a coma, give her a proper send off by killing her. Larson doesn't seem overly happy playing the role anyway.

 

[Bayne]

I hold by the smartest business move being playing things safe for now with heroes audiences are known to love and gravitate to as to re-establish solid ground with the masses.

And then, once the dust is more settled, experiment.

I never said stop experimenting (which you somehow took from it). What I said was - play it safe and then take risks again.

There is a difference. What I’m proposing is actually - a very standard business practice:

Re-establish trust to remind audiences why they love the brand prior to taking risks. This way audiences are more likely to follow a company in taking those risks; and therefore risks have a higher chance at taking off.

This is why one of Iger’s first steps was to highlight old beloved classic franchises and to put those at the forefront when he returned.

Adding: there is an obvious business reason why Iger highlighted this soon after returning (doing so isn’t a popular notion to those who want to keep immediately experimenting, but there is a reason for it) -

‘Frozen’, ’Toy Story’ & ‘Zootopia’ Sequels In The Works, Disney CEO Bob Iger Says

Animated sequels to ‘Toy Story,’ ‘Frozen’ and ‘Zootopia ‘are in the works, Disney CEO Bob Iger announced on the February 8 Q1 earnings call.

deadline.com

The issue I have with your comments isn't the idea that playing things safe is a logical (and likely) thing for Marvel to attempt.

It's the constant attempt at pretending that playing things safe is a simple and easy choice to be able to make without any serious confusion or disagreement about what is or isn't safe under the current circumstances. That's just not true. And it's especially not true that 'playing it safe' by definition lines up with what comic book fans specifically think are the most 'classic' characters - if that were true, then lots of things that hit big would never have hit big.

Of course Marvel is going to be inclined to play it safe right now, but that's not the important issue. The important issue is 'what does playing it safe look like?'

Right now, Marvel's idea of safe pretty clearly involves hoping for Daredevil to turn around the D+ reputation and using multiverse driven nostalgia cameos to drive box office. As well as not throwing away tons of money that they've already spent on development because those projects might not be safe.

But what does playing it safe look like beyond that?

It certainly doesn't include getting RDJ and Evans back as main characters long-term. They're way too expensive at this point, even if they were completely willing. There's no definitive proof that recasting those characters would actually be safe, either. The same dilemma also applies to Black Panther, which isn't necessarily safe moving forward from WF and isn't necessarily safe recasting T'Challa from the multiverse, either. Daredevil may have had a great reputation on netflix, but the Affleck movie proved he's no sure thing, either. Fantastic Four have had three tries at bat with almost no success. Hulk has had 2, with even less success. GotG already suffered from low hype with vol 3 and would only drop from there if Marvel tried to move forward with them sans James Gunn. Thor 5 certainly doesn't sound like a safe bet.

Yes, the X-men are obviously going to be a huge part of the plan, but that was always going to be the case. And Spider-man certainly isn't going anywhere.

Beyond that, the 'safest' things I see in the current MCU landscape are Dr. Strange 3, Shang-Chi 2 and Blade. And none of them are guarantees, either.

Bottom line, the MCU - assuming it's not just rebooting in general - is already at a point where they don't really have much choice but to take some risks just to have more than one or two things they can release.

 

[Cap2024]

The issue I have with your comments isn't the idea that playing things safe is a logical (and likely) thing for Marvel to attempt.

It's the constant attempt at pretending that playing things safe is a simple and easy choice to be able to make without any serious confusion or disagreement about what is or isn't safe under the current circumstances. That's just not true. And it's especially not true that 'playing it safe' by definition lines up with what comic book fans specifically think are the most 'classic' characters - if that were true, then lots of things that hit big would never have hit big.

Of course Marvel is going to be inclined to play it safe right now, but that's not the important issue. The important issue is 'what does playing it safe look like?'

Right now, Marvel's idea of safe pretty clearly involves hoping for Daredevil to turn around the D+ reputation and using multiverse driven nostalgia cameos to drive box office. As well as not throwing away tons of money that they've already spent on development because those projects might not be safe.

But what does playing it safe look like beyond that?

It certainly doesn't include getting RDJ and Evans back as main characters long-term. They're way too expensive at this point, even if they were completely willing. There's no definitive proof that recasting those characters would actually be safe, either. The same dilemma also applies to Black Panther, which isn't necessarily safe moving forward from WF and isn't necessarily safe recasting T'Challa from the multiverse, either. Daredevil may have had a great reputation on netflix, but the Affleck movie proved he's no sure thing, either. Fantastic Four have had three tries at bat with almost no success. Hulk has had 2, with even less success. GotG already suffered from low hype with vol 3 and would only drop from there if Marvel tried to move forward with them sans James Gunn. Thor 5 certainly doesn't sound like a safe bet.

Yes, the X-men are obviously going to be a huge part of the plan, but that was always going to be the case. And Spider-man certainly isn't going anywhere.

Beyond that, the 'safest' things I see in the current MCU landscape are Dr. Strange 3, Shang-Chi 2 and Blade. And none of them are guarantees, either.

Bottom line, the MCU - assuming it's not just rebooting in general - is already at a point where they don't really have much choice but to take some risks just to have more than one or two things they can release.

To break it down in a way that should be easier to understand -

The franchises that are known to continuously make the most money are - common sense - the safer bets.

To act like everything is on the same level of not being safe (viewing film franchises known for earning 800m+ as the exact same as those that haven’t been made in any way yet) is statistically ridiculous and simply aiming to be contrarian for the sake of it.

 

[Cap2024]

For further explanation:

So Agatha, Iron Heart, and Thunderbolts are as much of a risk as Black Panther 3 and another Guardians of the Galaxy? Really? These are projects that most would and have labeled as risks for obvious reasons.

In the beginning of the MCU, for the most part, it was kept simple. Iron Man, Captain America, Thor.

It wasn’t until after Avengers 2 that Ant Man was introduced. Etc. Guardians only one year before that. It wasn't extremely broad.

Thus, while the MCU expanded - it wasn’t until later on. Black Panther and Captain Marvel didn't even enter the scene until really late into the Infinity Saga (Captain Marvel literally sandwiched between the two-parter finale). After the MCU established firm foundations to stand on. Now, many are wondering when there will be even sequels to films because Marvel is "taking their time" as a result of having way too much going on.

Keep it small. Keep it simple. Build it up. That’s how the MCU began. There is no absolutely reason to constantly introduce new franchises and new characters while barely following up on any of them.

Their focus is so broad today that they have lost the script and even those familiar with the comics are scratching their heads over what the endgame here actually is. It’s way too spread out to the point that it has seemingly become disconnected.

Streamline it. We (obviously) don’t need shows about supporting characters like Agatha or Iron Heart or Echo -

During this time on Disney Plus, Marvel could have easily built a new Defenders, The Midnight Sons, or The Young Avengers. Rather than so many shows that are so disconnected that it is questionable why they even exist. Simplify it. Netflix did, so there is no reason Marvel and Disney can’t.

Rather than investing time into Echo, imagine that time and energy mostly going into nailing down Daredevil. That makes a lot more sense. "There are enough people to work on both" - here's the catch, there are too many chefs in the kitchen and the people at the top that used to be able to control quality (like Kevin) clearly can't juggle too many things at once. Ergo, the noticeable decline in quality across the board.

Iron Heart could have just been part of Iron Wars. Who sees this show doing well after Ms. Marvel didn't? Shows targeted around teenage girls even when they are of good quality - few are interested. Kamala is significantly more known in comparison at that.

Villains have always been criticized as being Marvel’s weak point. Now they want to put their energy into bringing many of them together?

If you want Thunderbolts, stop killing the villains off all the time. Wait until there are enough villains that people actually do care about - and then revolve films around them. For instance, who actually thought that - Ghost was memorable? Etc.

They need to significantly reduce output and instead of constantly trying to start new franchises then leaving them behind - come up with an actual streamlined game plan and follow through on it.

A giant is looming over the world after Eternals and it has never even factored into a story since then. In what planet is that believable? There are rumors of it being mentioned in the next Cap films, but this many years later and only now might it be somewhat brought in? Really? That's a clear and obvious sign that there is very little to no focus at play here.

I don’t place that all on Feige, rather Disney (particularly Disney Plus) demanding a near endless string of shows making it probably really hard to concentrate right now due to juggling too many balls at once. Common sense: you keep throwing balls at even the best juggler in the world, eventually they won't be able to catch up, and all the balls go crashing to the floor. [this is the reason Iger recently stated there has to be a change to focusing on quality rather than quantity, Disney had oddly become a factory - placing one story after another on an assembly line with very little oversight, anyone who has ever worked at factory knows where that can eventually lead to]

From working at an office within Warner Bros. or Sony, I can say that a lot of the time executives are barely in communication with each other. They are so focused on their own films that they're guiding along - that they rarely have time to communicate with each other. This was one of the first (and most shocking) things I learned from starting to work in the film industry years ago. So the notion that we are seeing obvious signs of that in the MCU (lack of communicating) isn't surprising at all - that's a part of why it is all over the place. Everything, but the kitchen sink.

After Endgame -

I would have had a Guardians and Thor team up film (like many audiences dreamed of when they headed off together), continue Spider-Man, and then come up with a solid film to introduce Sam as the next Captain America.

I also would have put a lot more development time into Doctor Strange, Ant Man, and Captain Marvel. They were half baked partially due to Marvel having spread themselves out too much. Of course there's a decrease in quality - they're too busy working on shows like Agatha and Iron Heart to put more time into, for instance, the next Captain America film and ergo the leaked test screening results. More work = less focus, common sense. That with keeping a close eye on the ballooning budgets.

Captain Marvel in part also fell apart for the same reasons as Iron Man 2. They couldn’t just let it alone and be itself, no - they had to cram so many other aspects and characters into it that it lost the plot and detoured audiences away because of how much material they would have to catch up on to fully follow and engage with it. It suffered for similar reasons as Iron Man 2. Could it have still done poorly? Possibly. Would it have done better (if even just slightly) if it wasn't so cramped with every other aspect being piled on top of it? More than likely.

For Disney Plus, finding some common through-line to tie most of the shows together rather than throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. Which is basically what they did with the exception of Loki. One off seasons that are then left behind to introduce the next character; take for instance, Moon Knight did well (better than many MCU shows) and yet there is still no solid word on a second season. Instead it's yet another character to show and then leave behind. They're doing mini-series when instead, they should have got show runners who knew what they were doing and presenting them as actual shows - you know, like Netflix did for Marvel. That also said, it's almost akin to what Netflix does in a negative way - just, instead of cancelling after one season - it's introducing new shows and characters and then leaving them behind since (more than likely) it was oddly conceptualized as such.

Plus, not to say the obvious (as most have said it) - the idea of withholding an Avengers film was an absolutely terrible idea.

Overall - rather than go with characters that make people pause and go “why???” (Agatha, really?) Actually put work into characters that audiences actually do care about and care about the most.

-------

Due to this rant I should state that I still do enjoy Marvel. I even liked Quantummania and Eternals. BUT is it obvious to tell what is going wrong here? Absolutely. In part, too much time being focused on introducing (very oddly characters that audiences have shown little interest in; if Iron Heart was Boba Fett (a supporting role that blew up more than expected) - I'd get it, but that was far from the case) - oddly not enough on actually following through on what has been introduced and doing so in a quality manner.

 

[SPO2 Dalisay]

To break it down in a way that should be easier to understand -

The franchises that are known to continuously make the most money are - common sense - the safer bets.

To act like everything is on the same level of not being safe (viewing film franchises known for earning 800m+ as the exact same as those that haven’t been made in any way yet) is statistically ridiculous and simply aiming to be contrarian for the sake of it.

But we still come back to what is the mission Disney has assigned to Marvel, and Star Wars for that matter. Is it to get people into the surviving theatres or to have a stream of content which will stop you from ending your Disney + subscription and waiting for what is your personal next show from the big thing. I know they want both, but the goals seem incompatible.

Where quantity has a quality of its own the middle ground of too much stuff to earn billions per release but then again not enough content to keep subscription fees rolling in year round is the trap that they are in.

The model being The Winter Soldier/Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D and now with the intra Disney power struggle over as in She-Hulk where you can take a chances on shows with cameos from the safe bet cast mixed in.

 

[Cap2024]

But we still come back to what is the mission Disney has assigned to Marvel, and Star Wars for that matter. Is it to get people into the surviving theatres or to have a stream of content which will stop you from ending your Disney + subscription and waiting for what is your personal next show from the big thing. I know they want both, but the goals seem incompatible.

Where quantity has a quality of its own the middle ground of too much stuff to earn billions per release but then again not enough content to keep subscription fees rolling in year round is the trap that they are in.

The model being The Winter Soldier/Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D and now with the intra Disney power struggle over as in She-Hulk where you can take a chances on shows with cameos from the safe bet cast mixed in.

You are saying quandary and both goals are incompatible due to releasing too much.

If you actually read what I wrote I continuously stated that they are releasing too much and need to decrease output (mainly on Disney Plus where they are all over the place and not putting out films the odds aren’t in their favor of, ie. Thunderbolts (unless you actually want to try to claim the odds are in favor for it)).

———————

Since I’m guessing you skimmed (thus reaching odd conclusions of what was actually said), here’s a shorter brief:

It’s all about streamlining.

Focusing the films so they are are all driving towards the same destination as before.

Focusing the shows so they are all driving towards the same destination, ie. Netflix.

Decreasing output by focusing on what stories to tell rather than constant one-offs and needless delays between sequels due to an excess of new franchises.

It isn’t some mystery.

2015 - 2019 were the sweet years for focus.

Both were already done, it was just kept unified and simple rather than everything but the kitchen sink.

 

[GreenKToo]

Imvho, marvel fell victim to their own success.
Let me elaborate. Remember when a marvel film was first announced?
Iron Man. Omg!! we couldn't wait and it hit all the right notes.
Give us more we cried.

Captain America was announced. Then Thor, etc etc.
Hit after hit came. Marvel could do no wrong.

Avengers was announced. The ultimate nerd film. We all geeked out at what we saw, as did the public.

A few misses came After, ie, Thor the dark world, IM 2, but they still did pretty big numbers.

Then the big show came, Infinity war and endgame, they were the apex.
Billions were made from both films, and that success is likely to not be repeated by marvel, Sony, or WB/dcu anytime soon.

Marvel was the king of the world and they knew it, but, they got lazy after IW and EG.
They thought they could just slap the name marvel on anything and have success, and they did, at least at first.

But one mediocre film after another, and lazy writing on some of the disney+ series caused fans and the casual viewer to wise up.

Now, the name marvel in front of a new film doesn't automatically mean success. It also has to actually ( gasp) be a good film.

Superhero fatigue? Nah. It's more like bad film fatigue.
Get back to the basics. Hire good directors, actors, AND good writers. Do that, and major success will return.
No one likes a bad film no matter what character(s) are in it ( see BvS ) no one likes to be preached at either.

 

[Erik20]

Imvho, marvel fell victim to their own success.
Let me elaborate. Remember when a marvel film was first announced?
Iron Man. Omg!! we couldn't wait and it hit all the right notes.
Give us more we cried.

Captain America was announced. Then Thor, etc etc.
Hit after hit came. Marvel could do no wrong.

Avengers was announced. The ultimate nerd film. We all geeked out at what we saw, as did the public.

A few misses came After, ie, Thor the dark world, IM 2, but they still did pretty big numbers.

Then the big show came, Infinity war and endgame, they were the apex.
Billions were made from both films, and that success is likely to not be repeated by marvel, Sony, or WB/dcu anytime soon.

Marvel was the king of the world and they knew it, but, they got lazy after IW and EG.
They thought they could just slap the name marvel on anything and have success, and they did, at least at first.

But one mediocre film after another, and lazy writing on some of the disney+ series caused fans and the casual viewer to wise up.

Now, the name marvel in front of a new film doesn't automatically mean success. It also has to actually ( gasp) be a good film.

Superhero fatigue? Nah. It's more like bad film fatigue.
Get back to the basics. Hire good directors, actors, AND good writers. Do that, and major success will return.
No one likes a bad film no matter what character(s) are in it ( see BvS ) no one likes to be preached at either.

Yeah agreed, it's not "superhero fatigue." You could only make that point if they released an Infinity War/Endgame level MCU movie now, and it still flopped. It's because most of the movies after Endgame were mediocre/bad. (Plus the shows weren't great either, except for WandaVision)

 

[Cap2024]

no one likes to be preached at either.

If you’re trying to find another way to say “go woke, go broke” -

Most audiences don’t care about the identity of who the characters are nor is anyone’s existence “preaching” as many in the anti-woke mob like to label it (if this wasn’t your intent, apologize for grouping you in with them - but generally the phrases and group tend to go together).

It comes down to quality not being up to par. Nothing to do with “strong woman bad” or “omg a gay person exists, gay agenda!”

While those complainers are obnoxiously loud - as ‘Barbie’ showed last year once again - those whiners carry very little to no weight at the box office.

The highest earning solo hero first installment MCU film is - Black Panther.

Among Marvel’s recent top performing films had a latina girl with two moms (Dr Strange 2), a female Black lead (Wakanda Forever), an Afro-Latino Spider-Man (Spiderverse). Meanwhile the least diverse was one of the worst performing (Quantummania).

It was the diverse Star Wars films, not Solo (which was a box office disappointment), that continually raked in over a billion at the box office.

Ike Perlmutter’s way of thinking is ancient, thus why he wasn’t (thankfully) brought back into the fold.

 

[GreenKToo]

If you’re trying to find another way to say “go woke, go broke” -

Most audiences don’t care about the identity of who the characters are nor is anyone’s existence “preaching” as many in the anti-woke mob like to label it (if this wasn’t your intent, apologize for grouping you in with them - but generally the phrases and group tend to go together).

It comes down to quality not being up to par. Nothing to do with “strong woman bad” or “omg a gay person exists, gay agenda!”

While those complainers are obnoxiously loud - as ‘Barbie’ showed last year once again - those whiners carry very little to no weight at the box office.

The highest earning solo hero first installment MCU film is - Black Panther.

Among Marvel’s recent top performing films had a latina girl with two moms (Dr Strange 2), a female Black lead (Wakanda Forever), an Afro-Latino Spider-Man (Spiderverse). Meanwhile the least diverse was one of the worst performing (Quantummania).

It was the diverse Star Wars films, not Solo (which was a box office disappointment), that continually raked in over a billion at the box office.

Ike Perlmutter’s way of thinking is ancient, thus why he wasn’t (thankfully) brought back into the fold.

I don't wanna be preached at be either side, left or right.
I go to the theatre to be entertained, and If I wanted to see more of the same crap going on in the world, I could just stay home and turn the channel to the news.
( this is not directed at you, but this is how I feel )

I don't mind diversity in films, it just doesn't need to feel forced, or shoe-horned in.
A woman lead? Great, but make it feel normal.
Gay main characters? Fine by me, but there is no need to show him or her shouting from the rooftop that their gay. Just portray it as normal.
I hope this made sense.

 

[Cap2024]

I don't wanna be preached at be either side, left or right.
I go to the theatre to be entertained, and If I wanted to see more of the same crap going on in the world, I could just stay home and turn the channel to the news.
( this is not directed at you, but this is how I feel )

I don't mind diversity in films, it just doesn't need to feel forced, or shoe-horned in.
A woman lead? Great, but make it feel normal.
Gay main characters? Fine by me, but there is no need to show him or her shouting from the rooftop that their gay. Just portray it as normal.

To the anti-woke mob, mere existence is often stated as being “forced.” A gay teenager merely having a crush in ‘Strange World’ was “forced,” when if he crushed on a girl they obviously wouldn’t say that.

Give at least one example in a Marvel film where a gay character “shouted from the rooftop” that they are gay.

Gay guys having a crush on a guy, kissing a guy, holding hands with a guy, or having a love interest isn’t “shouting it from the rooftop” any more so than a straight character doing the exact same thing.

Often times with the anti-woke mob say that - they prefer “don’t ask, don’t tell” as in don’t even reference or show it. Gay characters should be treated the exact same way that straight characters are.

 

[GreenKToo]

That's not what I mean. Being gay is fine, kissing, hugging, scenes are fine, but it's when a director goes out of his/her way to make sure you know they are gay, or trans, or whatever that bothers me. Why do that? It's perfectly normal to be whatever you want.
Just portray it as normal, because that's what it is.

 

[GreenKToo]

As for the films, and how to get back to pre endgame, they need another big threat. Galactus would be my choice.

 

[Cap2024]

That's not what I mean. Being gay is fine, kissing, hugging, scenes are fine, but it's when a director goes out of his/her way to make sure you know they are gay, or trans, or whatever that bothers me. Why do that? It's perfectly normal to be whatever you want.
Just portray it as normal, because that's what it is.

Again, you’re not giving any examples.

I can’t tell if you’re beating around the bush or accidentally repeating phrases the anti-woke mob are infamous for.

Are you trying to say existence in films is fine, but you question why there are articles about it beforehand?

Articles the filmmakers don’t have any control over?

In that case, what you’re complaining about isn’t the film itself rather studio “queer baiting” (the actual term); that’s especially heinous when the character in a film is never even shown to be queer.

Ex: Articles proclaiming Lando is pansexual, yet nothing in the film at all even gives that impression.

Wakanda Forever said there was rep, but it was so blink—and-miss-it that I still can’t really see it.

Same thing with Star Wars - “there’s a gay kiss in it!” - but it’s so kept to the background and fast that it’s another blink-and-miss-it.

That however is a different matter entirely. That isn’t really rep, it’s trying to get points for doing the bare minimum (thus queer baiting) which is offensive.

 

[GreenKToo]

Yes, existence in films is fine, but writing article after article about it beforehand is not. It's almost like it's being sabotaged.
Again, just portray it as normal. Making a big deal about it beforehand hurts more than it helps.

 

[Cap2024]

Yes, existence in films is fine, but writing article after article about it beforehand is not. It's almost like it's being sabotaged.
Again, just portray it as normal. Making a big deal about it beforehand hurts more than it helps.

It is sabotage. At this point, I don’t know what else to call it since studios by now should know the LGBTQ+ community has wisened up to it and they can’t play us anymore.

If those articles is for us, they’re ignoring that many LGBTQ+ have been calling studios out for queer baiting for years. Ex: Lando, Wakanda Forever, etc.

There’s a new type of queerbaiting in empty promises

Is Donald Glover’s Lando Calrissian the latest attempt to deny LGBT audiences tangible representation?

lwlies.com

 

[GreenKToo]

It is sabotage. At this point, I don’t know what else to call it since studios by now should know the LGBTQ+ community has wisened up to it and they can’t play us anymore.

If those articles is for us, they’re ignoring that many LGBTQ+ have been calling studios out for queer baiting for years. Ex: Lando, Wakanda Forever, etc.

There’s a new type of queerbaiting in empty promises

Is Donald Glover’s Lando Calrissian the latest attempt to deny LGBT audiences tangible representation?

lwlies.com

Agreed, and I don't understand it. It's infuriating.
And It really pi$$es my daughter off.