Fanboy Wars Thread: Personal Attacks not allowed | With Digital Fur Technology

[Lordmandeep]

Lol I think my point was to the men here ..

 

What kind of women seems more appealing to you personality wise...a Gal Gadot or a Brie Larson..

[Captain Craig]

On 5/6/2019 at 3:15 PM, WittyUsername said:

As far as Avatar is concerned, I don’t know if this sounds silly or what, but back in 2010/2011, I remembered thinking that the Avatar franchise had a shot at being this generation’s Star Wars. ......{edit}

Of course, at this point, it’s probably safe to say that the MCU is the new Star Wars,     while Star Wars is trying to be the new MCU, and there’s no telling how Avatar will fare as a franchise. 

Star Wars--->Potter--->MCU

To me that is succession pattern for the generational franchise pop-culture king hierarchy.

 

Avatar does not currently rate, we shall see what happens. 

[ChipDerby]

Oh good, another Brie Larson argument. I'm sure that will go well for the sexists.

[Lordmandeep]

1 hour ago, ChipMunky said:

Oh good, another Brie Larson argument. I'm sure that will go well for the sexists.

but people dont have issues with SJO or Gal Gadot personality, so is it really sexism?

 

Maybe Brie Larson has an unlikable personality to some and it has nothing to do with gender.

 

OFC most of the attacks on her are sexist nonsense, but if you watch the video it pretty much talks about the hallmarks of negative personality characteristics that anyone can have. 

As I said I do not think Brie Larson has a bad personality, it is that she has been attacked so much she takes the slightest thing as an offensive while any other actress would just take ignore it or take it as a joke 

 

Like Elizabeth Olsen has a video on Youtube that Brie Larson did with Wired and it got 99% like ratio. 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Lordmandeep

[TMP]

First out-and-out great funnybook tv show coming up:

 

[Pure Spirit]

4 hours ago, Captain Craig said:

Star Wars--->Potter--->MCU

To me that is succession pattern for the generational franchise pop-culture king hierarchy.

 

Avatar does not currently rate, we shall see what happens. 

Only if Avatar hits its new official release dates, and I think Earth is more likely to fly into the Sun.

[dudalb]

On ‎5‎/‎7‎/‎2019 at 10:35 AM, Water Bottle said:

 

Disney owns Avatar. Before that it was Fox. Come on, the success of Avatar was always tied to corporate movie making as well.

Cameron owns the Avatar franchise, not Disney.

But he is under contract and legally obligated to release the next 4 Avatar films as Disney releases; and I think that Fox/Disney is providing the bulk of the finiancing for the films. When Cameron delivers Avatar 5, he is legally free and can take the franchsie anywhere he wants, but until then he is pretty much part of the Mouse as far as Avatar goes.

And of course Cameon is tied in with coporate movie making, as much as his worshippers refuse to admit it;when you make films that cost as much as Cameron's films do...let's face it, he spends money on his flms like crazy..you are going to have to get your money from the big studios;they are the only ones who have the dough to give you.

[Pure Spirit]

28 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

but people dont have issues with SJO or Gal Gadot personality, so is it really sexism?

 

Maybe Brie Larson has an unlikable personality to some and it has nothing to do with gender.

 

OFC most of the attacks on her are sexist nonsense, but if you watch the video it pretty much talks about the hallmarks of negative personality characteristics that anyone can have. 

As I said I do not think Brie Larson has a bad personality, it is that she has been attacked so much she takes the slightest thing as an offensive while any other actress would just take ignore it or take it as a joke 

 

Like Elizabeth Olsen has a video on Youtube that Brie Larson did with Wired and it got 99% like ratio. 

Some people, male or female, just don't "click" with fame. I'm sure Brie is a fine person, but being in the spotlight is something I could never do, never mind being the face of the MCU. Some (most?) people just aren't suited well to it. I don't dislike Brie but I can understand why many people don't want her to be the face of the MCU. She probably has perfectly reasonable reasons to act defensive but charisma like a joke: if you have to explain it, it doesn't work.

[Pure Spirit]

3 minutes ago, dudalb said:

Cameron owns the Avatar franchise, not Disney.

But he is under contract and legally obligated to release the next 4 Avatar films as Disney releases; and I think that Fox/Disney is providing the bulk of the finiancing for the films. When Cameron delivers Avatar 5, he is legally free and can take the franchsie anywhere he wants, but until then he is pretty much part of the Mouse as far as Avatar goes.

And of course Cameon is tied in with coporate movie making, as much as his worshippers refuse to admit it;when you make films that cost as much as Cameron's films do...let's face it, he spends money on his flms like crazy..you are going to have to get your money from the big studios;they are the only ones who have the dough to give you.

Dudalb this might be the first time you and I have ever completely agreed. Even Cameron has admitted filmmaking is half directing, half arguing with the suits.

[dudalb]

18 hours ago, Barnack said:

 

Back in the days is Fox deal looked like that (more than first look, exclusive/pre approved distribution deal it look like):

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-04-22-ca-500-story.html

 

If I understand correctly, negative pick up model (i.e. made like an independent movie free of interference, the studio only pay later when they receive the movie done), Cameron continued to own intl right back then.

 

For the already financed movies obviously no, for the future sequel I would imagine also no, I would imagine Fox had at least some first look deal on all sequel.

 

When Cameron went to Disney for Avatar in 2006, Fox used their right of first refusal on him, to kept the project to them, I would imagine now Disney own that right:

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20100124093903/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_05/b4165048396178_page_3.htm

By mid-2006, according to someone involved in the negotiations, Fox was still concerned that making Avatarwould cost too much money. "They told us in no uncertain terms that they were passing on this film," Cameron says. Cameron decided the best way forward was to try to persuade another studio to get involved. Walt Disney (DIS) had produced two of the director's 3D underwater documentaries, so Cameron invited Dick Cook, then Disney's studio chief, to watch the clip. "We loved Jim and would have liked to have worked with him," says Cook. "He has an infectious love of 3D that impressed us. Unfortunately, we never got that far." The reason: Fox had the first right of refusal. "We were never going to let this one get away," says Fox Co-Chairman Jim Gianopoulos.

 

Any contracts that Fox had with Cameron automatically carried over to Disney when the merger happened. That's business law 101:unless specifically excluded when you acquire or merge with a company, you now have all the assets...and all the liabilities as well.

Cameron owns the franchise, but can't take  it elsewhere until his contract with Disney expires, which I think happens with Avatar 5.

[JB33]

I really want to like Brie Larson but the problem is she seems like she's just gone all in on being the champion for social justice and the left. Like, she doesn't just lean that way. She's literally taking all the tropes and personifying them with conviction. I guess she sees it as responsibility to take on that mantle, I don't know.

 

It's not just her I'm picking on, by the way, which is my point about her being the champion. It's that whole shift in culture that I hate. She just personifies it.

[Lordmandeep]

27 minutes ago, Pure Spirit said:

Some people, male or female, just don't "click" with fame. I'm sure Brie is a fine person, but being in the spotlight is something I could never do, never mind being the face of the MCU. Some (most?) people just aren't suited well to it. I don't dislike Brie but I can understand why many people don't want her to be the face of the MCU. She probably has perfectly reasonable reasons to act defensive but charisma like a joke: if you have to explain it, it doesn't work.

Brie Larson is no Gal Gadot, simple as that. 

 

Like why do people like Gal Gadot so much? 

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Lordmandeep

[dudalb]

Rumor that Disney is going to reshoot 75% of New Mutants,do a total rewrite of the script and add a number of new X men including some of the heavy hitters like Collosus and Kitty Pryde.

 

IMHO this is fan fantasy BS. After what happened with "Solo" I doubt Disney is in the mood to pretty much totally remake a film.not to mention that bringin the heavy hitter X Men would sabotage any plans that Marvel Studiios might have for them.

Make more sense, if they wanted to do a New Mutants movie (which I don't think they are ready to do yet) just throw out the old one (if you have to redo 75% of it it's not worth much anyway) and start from scratch without the baggage.

Some people just won't let "New Mutants" go. Yes, the idea of a R rated horror based Super Hero movie is a great idea, but everything screams that "New Mutants" was hopelessly messed up . Just let it bomb in peace, folks.

I think "Solo" has made Disney very,very, cautious about spending. large amounts of money on what amount to a total reshoot of a movie.

Edited May 8, 2019 by dudalb

[WittyUsername]

Why is Disney even releasing New Mutants in theaters to begin with? Just put it on Hulu or something. 

[Barnack]

12 hours ago, Lordmandeep said:

but people dont have issues with SJO or Gal Gadot personality, so is it really sexism?

 

No necessarily a completely wrong way to view it, but that a bit of a "I have a black friend cannot be racist" type of point of view.

 

Sexism express itself way more with how much one react, how much one is displeased when someone do no act like they like than how much they are pleased when they act has they like. How large the frame of the possible to be liked (or moreso not hated in a campaign way) is, is an other measure of sexism or it's absence.

 

Some culture can accept woman on a very small window of possible (the contrast of Olympics curling female team from some Asian country versus male one reaction too loosing or just resting pause was quite something) and if they are well liked when they behave as expected does not mean that when they are disliked it cannot be sexism.

 

That said that video do point to actual point and it is in some of the easiest to score well setting (a banter with an other sh playing actor about fantastic made up powers, can you get more lightweight fun scenario for a junket than that).

 

I am not sure how much gender factor in the subjective dislikability felt, but I think in how much that dislikability is received and made a big deal out of is quite apparent (that and the age, being a big factor maybe bigger).

 

For example, Bruce Willis is one of the most dislikable junket/on set person in the history of the industry (probably why he went on direct to video the minute he lost is box office drawing power):

 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/895907/10-clips-which-prove-bruce-willis-can-be-the-most-awkward-star-to-interview-in-hollywood/

 

No one I think seem to care 1% about it has much has if it was a young actress (there is something normal to give legend paid there due more leeway, feel like Sam Jackson earned to say whatever he want).

 

When it is Bruce Willis there is no click money to make, the very logical but who care ? rapidly kick-in.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Barnack

[dudalb]

12 minutes ago, WittyUsername said:

Why is Disney even releasing New Mutants in theaters to begin with? Just put it on Hulu or something. 

I read,..in a rumor that actually makes sense....they have contractual obligations with some of the cast members for a threatical release.  I suspect a lot of actors are putting that clause in ,with it being pretty clear that more and more films intended for a theatrical release end up DTV or Streaming Service.

[Alli]

Bruce willis is not an actor who came to prominence in the social media era. if he started in movies today, he'd be criticised too. He's washed up these days so nobody cares

 

but brie is not comparable to bruce willis. she's just outspoken.

Edited May 8, 2019 by Alli

[Lordmandeep]

20 minutes ago, Barnack said:

 

No necessarily a completely wrong way to view it, but that a bit of a "I have a black friend cannot be racist" type of point of view.

 

Sexism express itself way more with how much one react, how much one is displeased when someone do no act like they like than how much they are pleased when they act has they like. How large the frame of the possible to be liked (or moreso not hated in a campaign way) is, is an other measure of sexism or it's absence.

 

Some culture can accept woman on a very small window of possible (the contrast of Olympics curling female team from some Asian country versus male one reaction too loosing or just resting pause was quite something) and if they are well liked when they behave as expected does not mean that when they are disliked it cannot be sexism.

 

That said that video do point to actual point and it is in some of the easiest to score well setting (a banter with an other sh playing actor about fantastic made up powers, can you get more lightweight fun scenario for a junket than that).

 

I am not sure how much gender factor in the subjective dislikability felt, but I think in how much that dislikability is received and made a big deal out of is quite apparent (that in age).

 

For example, Bruce Willis is one of the most dislikable junket/on set person in the history of the industry (probably he went on direct to video the minute he lost is box office drawing power):

 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/895907/10-clips-which-prove-bruce-willis-can-be-the-most-awkward-star-to-interview-in-hollywood/

 

No one I think seem to care 1% about it has much has if it was a young actress (there is something normal to give legend paid there due more leeway, feel like Sam Jackson earned to say whatever he want).

 

When it is Bruce Willis there is no click money to make, the very logical but who care ? rapidly kick-in.

 

 

The issue is the video pointed out her flaws that had nothing to do with her gender. Ofc attaching Brie Larson to that video 100% generated a lot more to that video then it normally would have. 

 

Even so, if Brie Larson was not being pushed as the next leader of the MCU I doubt anyone would really care about what she said or how she said it. Any actor or actress that stars in the MCU goes from the fringes into a household name these days. 

 

As I said I would really like the next CM to really flesh out her character and have a much better script. 

 

I really would like a strong likable female character like WW in the MCU. 

 

Edited May 8, 2019 by Lordmandeep

[AndyK]

55 minutes ago, Lordmandeep said:

Brie Larson is no Gal Gadot, simple as that. 

 

Like why do people like Gal Gadot so much? 

 

There's an awful lot of people who actively detest GG.

[Lordmandeep]

3 minutes ago, AndyK said:

There's an awful lot of people who actively detest GG.

 

 

however as I said the reasons why GG or Brie Larson get detested by some people is more complicated then 'they sexist"