Jump to content

Plain Old Tele

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

Recommended Posts



15 minutes ago, terrestrial said:

Do you really belive an Alien released in 2019 wouldn't get the same kind of reactions?

I feel in the '90 the anti female reactions were less bad than today - by far. Me being the only female appearing on a work-site in the '80 had far less reactions than today (no matter if positive or negative), even if today I wouldn't be the only one. Especially as I was the boss of the department then (I work nowadays as the main job for a school, but still have contacts).

 

Beside that, I said explicit its a question of formulation, the style tells a lot too often already.

 

6 minutes ago, HeadShot said:

Um because this whole Anti-SJW movement didn't exist back then. So many movies and tv-shows from the 90s and the 00s have strong female lead characters and no one complained. 

 

 

Xena always said snidely comments about men. She ended up with a woman. This would be hated on so much today.  

MV5BOTdkYjA4YzAtMjNiZS00OTgyLTg5Y2ItNGIw

 

same with buffy

MV5BY2MwOGIyZGYtNzgxZC00N2Q5LTllYjItM2U4

 

 

You are making assumptions here, only to serve your argument. If you got something solid, happy to discuss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 minutes ago, Avatree said:

That's right, women have always had the same popularity in action genre as men have, because XENA WARRIOR PRINCESS and BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER exist.

 

Don't believe that is the point here, the discussion is whether characters that have been panned by the fandoms were panned because they are weak characters or because of the character's gender/sexuality etc. 

 

My view is that it's a combination of both, however applying the latter on anyone who didn't like said characters is egregious and way over-used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LaughingEvans said:

You are making assumptions here, only to serve your argument. If you got something solid, happy to discuss.

In which way I make assumptions?

 

It was about you making assumptions see the state of the US, see audience critics getting questioned for how-far they are actually doing a review or misuse it for something else... and what that has to mean as a general rule in your POV.

 

Funny try to dismiss someone else's POV as 'not solid' beside said person actually experienced that time as a usually rather relaxed adult, without going into specifics where the 'fault' is seen.

Poor.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



10 minutes ago, LaughingEvans said:

 

 

You are making assumptions here, only to serve your argument. If you got something solid, happy to discuss.

I'm basing it off all the stuff I've watched. Captain Marvel was dragged by many for being feminist - specifically for the line about showing the boys how it's done. I don't see a difference in her personality compared to other female leads from other decades.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





9 minutes ago, HeadShot said:

glad you contributed to the box office x

no he didn't, he bought ticket for Alita and sneaked into screening of Cpt Marvel. And bragged about it on this very forum

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Astonished 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



5 minutes ago, JimiQ said:

no he didn't, he bought ticket for Alita and sneaked into screening of Cpt Marvel. And bragged about it on this very forum

Yeah Alita was a really bad movie. I understand why he didn't want to rewatch it. 

  • Astonished 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JimiQ said:

no he didn't, he bought ticket for Alita and sneaked into screening of Cpt Marvel. And bragged about it on this very forum

that's in my POV bad sportsmanship at best, if the movies are distributed by different companies, actors or crew, producers have contracts, even taking away their fair share.... thumb's down in a big way

 

So glad cinemas here have only reserved seating (no matter if you reserve, the exact seat's row and number are on the ticket), the cinemas near to me also controlling the tickets for every room (I think a few of the big ones farer away have another system, not sure)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



2 hours ago, JimiQ said:

no he didn't, he bought ticket for Alita and sneaked into screening of Cpt Marvel. And bragged about it on this very forum

Yeah, to be honest they got a good deal because you have to pay me to watch it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



No one should be surprised by Disney trying to extort Sony. This is what this evil company has been doing to theater owners for a while now. 

 

Sony was very generous to share Spider-man with the MCU. Yes the previous Spider-man movie was terrible and the Spider-man universe they were planning was a mess, but they didn't really need Kevin Feige to turn things around. They were perfectly able to make great and commercially successful Spider-man movies before, and they could do it again without Marvel Studios' involvement. Just look at Venom and Into the Spider-verse. The MCU was the one getting something only Sony could provide, which was Spider-man, Marvel's only iconic comic book character not part of the X-Men.

 

That was a pretty good deal for Disney. 5% of the Spider-man films' box office, boosted ticket sales for their Avengers movies featuring him, and all the merchandising money. And Sony even tried to raise Disney's stake on future Spidey movies, but not to absurd 50%. Disney is the only company here that didn't give a crap about the fans. Marvel fans shouldn't be coming for Sony.

Edited by Napoleon
  • Like 2
  • ...wtf 1
  • Knock It Off 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



4 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

No one should be surprised by Disney trying to extort Sony. This is what this evil company has been doing to theater owners for a while now. 

 

Sony was very generous to share Spider-man with the MCU. Yes the previous Spider-man movie was terrible and the Spider-man universe they were planning was a mess, but they didn't really need Kevin Feige to turn things around. They were perfectly able to make great and commercially successful Spider-man movies before, and they could do it again without Marvel Studios' involvement. Just look at Venom and Into the Spider-verse. The MCU was the one getting something only Sony could provide, which was Spider-man, Marvel's only iconic comic book character not part of the X-Men.

 

That was a pretty good deal for Disney. 5% of the Spider-man films' box office, boosted ticket sales for their Avengers movies featuring him, and all the merchandising money. And Sony even tried to raise Disney's stake on future Spidey movies, but not to absurd 50%. Disney is the only company here that didn't give a crap about the fans. Marvel fans shouldn't be coming for Sony.

Look people! Definiton of average...

Proof: mentioning Venom and ITSV in the same sentence

 

TTVOMJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites



4 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

No one should be surprised by Disney trying to extort Sony. This is what this evil company has been doing to theater owners for a while now. 

 

Sony was very generous to share Spider-man with the MCU. Yes the previous Spider-man movie was terrible and the Spider-man universe they were planning was a mess, but they didn't really need Kevin Feige to turn things around. They were perfectly able to make great and commercially successful Spider-man movies before, and they could do it again without Marvel Studios' involvement. Just look at Venom and Into the Spider-verse. The MCU was the one getting something only Sony could provide, which was Spider-man, Marvel's only iconic comic book character not part of the X-Men.

 

That was a pretty good deal for Disney. 5% of the Spider-man films' box office, boosted ticket sales for their Avengers movies featuring him, and all the merchandising money. And Sony even tried to raise Disney's stake on future Spidey movies, but not to absurd 50%. Disney is the only company here that didn't give a crap about the fans. Marvel fans shouldn't be coming for Sony.

As much as I dislike Disney, Sony’s decision to share Spider-Man with Marvel Studios wasn’t done out of generosity, but desperation. Sony was in an extremely rough financial spot at the time, and given the underperformance of TASM2, it was clear that they needed to come up with something to rejuvenate their biggest franchise, and they quickly realized that letting the character interact with the Avengers was the best and easiest way of doing so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



7 hours ago, LaughingEvans said:

 

Sure, it would be legit if it was not projected. If it is angst over female leads why is this not the case over Beatrix Kiddo/Sarah Connor/Ripley/Furiosa/Leia/BW et cetera? The point is always invoked/projected when the person defending the movie has 0 arguments and decides to attack the character of the person they disagree with.

 

Because people liked those, this is a bit similar to the person cannot be racist, the person has a black friend type of argument.

 

The nature, intensity of the negative reaction can still differ.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



10 minutes ago, Barnack said:

The nature, intensity of the negative reaction can still differ.

That is what I mean with its all about the wording, formulation.

They differ a lot.

Out if the reasoning given its often rather simple to recognise where someone is coming from, no matter if positive or negative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



50 minutes ago, Napoleon said:

No one should be surprised by Disney trying to extort Sony. This is what this evil company has been doing to theater owners for a while now. 

 

Sony was very generous to share Spider-man with the MCU. Yes the previous Spider-man movie was terrible and the Spider-man universe they were planning was a mess, but they didn't really need Kevin Feige to turn things around. They were perfectly able to make great and commercially successful Spider-man movies before, and they could do it again without Marvel Studios' involvement. Just look at Venom and Into the Spider-verse. The MCU was the one getting something only Sony could provide, which was Spider-man, Marvel's only iconic comic book character not part of the X-Men.

 

That was a pretty good deal for Disney. 5% of the Spider-man films' box office, boosted ticket sales for their Avengers movies featuring him, and all the merchandising money. And Sony even tried to raise Disney's stake on future Spidey movies, but not to absurd 50%. Disney is the only company here that didn't give a crap about the fans. Marvel fans shouldn't be coming for Sony.

Sony hasn't made a good live action spider man since 2004 LMAO. Disney saved them. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.