The Ultimate Superheroines Forum

theScribbler wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Ms Marvel Tomato.png
Ms Marvel Googled.png

Oh no! Not the - they ain't see the movie cause of da misogynies!!! - Conspiracy theory.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

theScribbler wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Wow. What a complete off the wall jump from his quote to twisting it into having anything to do with your usual shirtless pet peeve!

However, this would be a great topic in Misc forum as a new thread titled "Mr. X's well known pet peeve" or "Female cheese cake golden age has passed." Another good topic for Misc forum would be "For the millionth time not all ice creams are the same." And maybe something about crayon colors.

He stated

I'm really confused by the it's not sexy enough arguments.

I merely replied. Plenty of sexy from what I can see.

That's not the quote you had in your reply that you actually replied to.

Also his quote that you now say you 'merely replied' to is in a larger section about sexy superheroines. So you leave that part out for some lame reason. I'll put it here...

jlocke wrote: ↑

2 years ago

cap1.jpg

cap2.jpg

I'm really looking forward to this one. I loved Captain Marvel, Wanda Vison, and Ms. Marvel so this is right down my alley. Brie looks amazing.

I'm really confused by the it's not sexy enough arguments. Like, we have an entire fetish industry dedicated to sexy superheroines. Mavel/DC/Independent mainstream superheroine movies/shows aren't made to jerk off too. They're GREAT material for us to create erotic stories/custom vids. But the 80's are over. When I was young, I would sit through a shitty, badly written, poorly acted 2 hour movie just so I could see some B-cup boobs. I'm never fucking going to do that ever again! No one is ever going to make money off that shit again. When porn was really hard to get and seeing a little jiggle and some cleavage was very exciting. People would pay money for it. Now, when you can see so much explicit nudity/hardcore porn/fetish material there is NO market for a 100 million dollar 1970's jiggle TV superheroine movie.

Your reply is a bit of an EPIC fail.

But whatever... I stand by this...

[Your pet peeve of shirtless men] would be a great topic in Misc forum as a new thread titled "Mr. X's well known pet peeve" or "Female cheese cake golden age has passed." Another good topic for Misc forum would be "For the millionth time not all ice creams are the same." And maybe something about crayon colors.

But this should be a thread that you're the OP of. You should own it. Like you own a $1000 plus statue of Lynda Carter. Which is curous. I'd have though you would've bought a $1000 Thor.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

theScribbler wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Ms Marvel Tomato.png
Ms Marvel Googled.png

Oh no! Not the - they ain't see the movie cause of da misogynies!!! - Conspiracy theory.

Ah, you must be on something. We can wait till you sober up.

theScribbler wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

theScribbler wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Ms Marvel Tomato.png
Ms Marvel Googled.png

Oh no! Not the - they ain't see the movie cause of da misogynies!!! - Conspiracy theory.

Ah, you must be on something. We can wait till you sober up.

Oh I have sobered up. I think Disney should make dozens of these movies at double and triple the budget. I am pro Marvels. Gonna be the bestest movie evar.

theScribbler wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Contrary to your statement: Ms. Marvel is highly rated TV series. Please stop publishing your false propaganda here.

I will note that 775,000 household viewership in the first 5 days is low compared to other Marvel series

Men will pay to see this, just like men are paying to see Barbie!

So, first you say Ms. Marvel is highly rated, and then you confirm my statement by re-stating that it was the lowest-watched Marvel series.
(recent article confirmed that Secret Invasion was the second lowest. People cared more about a series pitting Nick Fury against Skrulls than they did about Kamala Khan). Good job contradicting yourself.

Men are paying to see Barbie - yes - because 1) it's a movie they take their girlfriends or daughters to and 2) because Margot Robbie is there for them to enjoy, for the eye candy. That was what I said - to the extent they are making Brie look better it's to attract more men.

The rest of your drivel was a personal attack on my project. I refuse to respond to any of that whatsoever. It's uncalled for. I mean, you can use your freedom of speech here any way you want, but that doesn't mean I need to lend credibility to anything you say.

As for Eric July, I'm not actually a supporter of his. I just don't enjoy the particular subject matter he is presenting. But I realize how important people like him are, who demonstrate that you don't have to swallow whatever pablum the megacorps mindlessly churn out for consumption. I back plenty of other comic book campaigns both on KS and IGG.

As for what I watch, I'll watch things anywhere I want to, any way I want to. Period. And I will report back here on what I think of them.
Meanwhile, you keep running interference for megacorporations, one incel at a time. It's holy work, I understand your fervor for it.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

theScribbler wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Contrary to your statement: Ms. Marvel is highly rated TV series. Please stop publishing your false propaganda here.

I will note that 775,000 household viewership in the first 5 days is low compared to other Marvel series

Men will pay to see this, just like men are paying to see Barbie!

So, first you say Ms. Marvel is highly rated, and then you confirm my statement by re-stating that it was the lowest-watched Marvel series.
(recent article confirmed that Secret Invasion was the second lowest. People cared more about a series pitting Nick Fury against Skrulls than they did about Kamala Khan). Good job contradicting yourself.

Good job not knowing what contradicting is.

Good job not knowing the difference between highly rated vs low viewership. Here's a hint. Highly rated has nothing to do with viewership numbers.

Here's a list of Top rated movies on IMDB. (Hint: not an ordered list of movies by viewership numbers)

https://www.imdb.com/chart/top/

98% tomatoes is highly rated show on Rotten Tomatoes.

775,000 household views is low viewership compared to other Marvel shows.

Loki season one had 2.5 million household viewership and 92% on tomatometer, so best numbers in viewership and highly rated.

Will this sink into a pea brain? Probably not. Can't argue with dumb really.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Men are paying to see Barbie - yes - because 1) it's a movie they take their girlfriends or daughters to and 2) because Margot Robbie is there for them to enjoy, for the eye candy. That was what I said - to the extent they are making Brie look better it's to attract more men.

The rest of your drivel was a personal attack on my project. I refuse to respond to any of that whatsoever. It's uncalled for. I mean, you can use your freedom of speech here any way you want, but that doesn't mean I need to lend credibility to anything you say.

That's perfectly fine. I point out the H-burgh is drivel and you confirm with no counter.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

As for Eric July, I'm not actually a supporter of his. I just don't enjoy the particular subject matter he is presenting. But I realize how important people like him are, who demonstrate that you don't have to swallow whatever pablum the megacorps mindlessly churn out for consumption. I back plenty of other comic book campaigns both on KS and IGG.

Sure, plenty of manbabies support stuff they don't actually like to stick it to really big successful companies.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

As for what I watch, I'll watch things anywhere I want to, any way I want to. Period. And I will report back here on what I think of them.
Meanwhile, you keep running interference for megacorporations, one incel at a time. It's holy work, I understand your fervor for it.

Of course you will. Cause you're a thief. I get it tho. Can't afford anything on H-burgh non income.

No one cares what you think.

I don't know what 'one shevek at a time' means. Running interference has nothing to do with pointing out your failures, your dumbspeak. It's not about interference. It's about fun. You're welcome.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

jlocke wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Now I get the point about oppressed White Men. I get it. We only have 3 Captain America movies, 4 Thor Movies, 3 Iron Man movies, 3 Ant-Man movies, 3 Spider-Man movies, 2 Doctor Strange Movies, 3 Star-Lord (Guardians) Movies, and Incredible Hulk. I mean, that's only 22 movies with White Male Main Protagonist. I mean, come on Marvel! White Men are under attack! We built western civilization, and now, we're being forced at gun point to watch a movie with 3 female leads! It's so unfair!

You mean the jacked, shirtless Capt America, Thor, Star Lord, Ant man, Hawkeye etc? That fan service? Isn't it funny how Hemsworth poses literally nude in Love and Thunder, chained down and forcibly stripped and he's all jacked and buff BUT men are unreasonable if they want a little fan service. BTW can anyone name one Marvel movie that has shown any bare legs? Any? How about cleavage, and real cleavage not some slightly pulled down zipper. Try chaining down an actress and forcibly stripping her onscreen to butt nakedness and see how that works out.

I don't care if this movie only has midgets in it. However a crowd that demands diversity quotas who then toss out the rules is a group no one should trust.

Do I have to break out the math again? We've TALKED about this. The thing you quoted even includes the numbers!

Once we have 22 marvel films of women lead properties with ZERO cheesy pie, THEN you have an argument. You don't have one right now because we only have two. Oh and the series... one of which includes Elizabeth Olsen in the OG scarlet witch costume leotard, cleavage and all. Numbers! Probability and opportunity!

theScribbler wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Good job not knowing the difference between highly rated vs low viewership. Here's a hint. Highly rated has nothing to do with viewership numbers.

No one cares what you think.

Good job nitpicking on my terminology. When I said "highly rated" I meant "high ratings" not how well the critics rated it on Rotten Tomatoes.
"Ratings" mean the number of people watching (as in the old term of "Nielsen ratings") and I said it was low-watched which should give you a hint of what I was intending to say.

You haven't refuted that fact, because you can't - it literally is the lowest-watched Marvel series of the current phase.
So instead, you danced around the terminology to try to stick it to me. Doesn't work, because everyone here knows what you're trying to do,
and "nobody cares what you think".

Also, I still won't respond to attacks on my person and my creativity in this thread, because that's not what this thread is about.
It's about The Marvels.

If you really care so much about attacking me because (as you say) you feel that it's "fun" for you to attack a small producer, then make a thread about how terribly I'm supposedly doing, and then I'll respond to you in full and utterly refute you. Otherwise, there's nothing left to say.

Femina wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

jlocke wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Now I get the point about oppressed White Men. I get it. We only have 3 Captain America movies, 4 Thor Movies, 3 Iron Man movies, 3 Ant-Man movies, 3 Spider-Man movies, 2 Doctor Strange Movies, 3 Star-Lord (Guardians) Movies, and Incredible Hulk. I mean, that's only 22 movies with White Male Main Protagonist. I mean, come on Marvel! White Men are under attack! We built western civilization, and now, we're being forced at gun point to watch a movie with 3 female leads! It's so unfair!

You mean the jacked, shirtless Capt America, Thor, Star Lord, Ant man, Hawkeye etc? That fan service? Isn't it funny how Hemsworth poses literally nude in Love and Thunder, chained down and forcibly stripped and he's all jacked and buff BUT men are unreasonable if they want a little fan service. BTW can anyone name one Marvel movie that has shown any bare legs? Any? How about cleavage, and real cleavage not some slightly pulled down zipper. Try chaining down an actress and forcibly stripping her onscreen to butt nakedness and see how that works out.

I don't care if this movie only has midgets in it. However a crowd that demands diversity quotas who then toss out the rules is a group no one should trust.

Do I have to break out the math again? We've TALKED about this. The thing you quoted even includes the numbers!

Once we have 22 marvel films of women lead properties with ZERO cheesy pie, THEN you have an argument. You don't have one right now because we only have two. Oh and the series... one of which includes Elizabeth Olsen in the OG scarlet witch costume leotard, cleavage and all. Numbers! Probability and opportunity!

So you think Olsen in an old halloween costume = Hemsworth naked and chained down? Ok.

But yes lets make that 22 marvel movie happen! And triple the budgets! Skies the limit. We need more and more and more! Oh and Elliot Page as the next Thor.

You guys make a lot of great political points. About a superheroine movie. Lot to think about. Thank you.

I have to say though, I'm really looking forward to seeing this movie in the theater. November 10th, 2023. Though I might have to wait until the 14th because Tuesdays are half price around here. Who am I kidding? I'm definitely going to take my wife to see it opening night. She loved the first one. Definitely a really good date night activity.


Wait. Sorry. I think the gif might not be official.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Femina wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

jlocke wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Now I get the point about oppressed White Men. I get it. We only have 3 Captain America movies, 4 Thor Movies, 3 Iron Man movies, 3 Ant-Man movies, 3 Spider-Man movies, 2 Doctor Strange Movies, 3 Star-Lord (Guardians) Movies, and Incredible Hulk. I mean, that's only 22 movies with White Male Main Protagonist. I mean, come on Marvel! White Men are under attack! We built western civilization, and now, we're being forced at gun point to watch a movie with 3 female leads! It's so unfair!

You mean the jacked, shirtless Capt America, Thor, Star Lord, Ant man, Hawkeye etc? That fan service? Isn't it funny how Hemsworth poses literally nude in Love and Thunder, chained down and forcibly stripped and he's all jacked and buff BUT men are unreasonable if they want a little fan service. BTW can anyone name one Marvel movie that has shown any bare legs? Any? How about cleavage, and real cleavage not some slightly pulled down zipper. Try chaining down an actress and forcibly stripping her onscreen to butt nakedness and see how that works out.

I don't care if this movie only has midgets in it. However a crowd that demands diversity quotas who then toss out the rules is a group no one should trust.

Do I have to break out the math again? We've TALKED about this. The thing you quoted even includes the numbers!

Once we have 22 marvel films of women lead properties with ZERO cheesy pie, THEN you have an argument. You don't have one right now because we only have two. Oh and the series... one of which includes Elizabeth Olsen in the OG scarlet witch costume leotard, cleavage and all. Numbers! Probability and opportunity!

So you think Olsen in an old halloween costume = Hemsworth naked and chained down? Ok.

But yes lets make that 22 marvel movie happen! And triple the budgets! Skies the limit. We need more and more and more! Oh and Elliot Page as the next Thor.

The number of marvel movies made is immaterial to me if they get GOOD again. It doesn't necessarily 'offend' me if they are making movies 'at all' so that last line doesn't really threaten me the way say... a sequel to Transformers Revenge of the Fallen does... (of course with the writers/actors strike in play we DO need to worry about EXACTLY that basically in every medium on every channel and in every cinema) If they keep making one or two GOOD movies inbetween the garbage I'm not particularly 'out'. Wakanda Forever and GotG3 were both great films even if Multiverse of Madness and Thor 4 were fucking trash. Quantumania was just 'meh' neither offensive nor great.

As for Olsen, Hemsworth didn't get naked in Thor 1. So yes I DO. There was also the episode where Olsen dresses up as a sexy magician assistant which although the scene is in black and white, is probably even more racy. The more a character is on screen, the more the audience and series is 'comfortable' with them enough to do stuff like this. Obviously we're never going to see a woman's naked chest in the MCU, that's not a MCU or Hollywood problem though, that's an US problem, a Christian based societal quirk. Men's chest and women's chests aren't socially conflated equally, and thus culturally they AREN'T equally conflatable. TO that point men's SEX organs and women's are INVERSELY equitable, as you're ten times more likely to see a woman's naked hips as you are to see dong. THESE aren't problems that superhero films have to solve for us, those are societal quirks. Female 'cheesy pie' in all the stuff from 60's nostalgia are no MORE racy than Elizabeth Olsen in a leotard, and that's just the facts. For the purposes of superheroine fetish, that's basically the only kind of fanservice cheese you should expect from the mainstream. Now, I'm not a fan of that Thor scene so don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying 'it's fine to show naked dudes but not naked women' by any means. (I hate FAT Thor as well... Thor was my favorite character before his character assassination began in Endgame) Thor 4 is a terrible, TERRIBLE movie... I'm MERELY stating that they would never even have entertained for a split second the notion of stripping him naked in Thor 1 when they needed to be building him up and getting the audience to like him and root for him. You don't 'objectify' the guy you're introducing and want taken seriously, you wait until people know him, love him, and want to see his bare naked ass... which won't happen if people don't know him and love him first.

To use one of them metaphors you like so much. Cheese and wine is served AFTER dinner. You eat something of SUBSTANCE first. Thus far, supeheroines in the MCU don't have much of substance because NUMERICALLY they aren't the focus of anything. Black Widow was around the longest of all the MCU ladies and quite frankly she was treated as a third or fourth string character in basically every film she was in, never focused on or 'proven' long enough to entertain the notion of breaking down her image for fan service by putting her in a two piece strutting around the beach.

It's ALWAYS a numbers game. The more of a thing there is, the less controversial it becomes, the less of a big deal it is to mess with.

Female 'cheesy pie' in all the stuff from 60's nostalgia are no MORE racy than Elizabeth Olsen in a leotard, and that's just the facts.

I think you're playing naive on purpose to win. WAY big difference between a small scene of Olsen in a leotard vs a jacked Hemsworth naked and chained down as eye candy.

I'm sorry but your argument is obviously a shell game and you know it. To state a simple leotard scene is the same as shirtless, jacked dudes in long fan service scenes is absurd. Did you know Cavill stood around for 25 minutes shirtless in Justice League? Did Gal Gadot do that? NO. People complained about a 5 second pan past her booty or one frame of her skirt popping up and showing some granny panties. I flat out state I think your disingenuous at this point.

And its not a numbers game cause you assume the fallacy there must be parody in all things. Its simply not "your turn". There are no turns. If I have a backyard BBQ I do not have to invite 50% women at the BBQ.

I am all for this movie and the new Snow White. And they need to double an triple the budgets. No one can reason with people like you and you are dead set on pounding holes in the bottom of the boat so let me help you cause I can swim and I know you can't. Yes I 100% favor destroying your kind with your very own horrible ideas.

(misspelled backyard)

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Female 'cheesy pie' in all the stuff from 60's nostalgia are no MORE racy than Elizabeth Olsen in a leotard, and that's just the facts.

I think you're playing naive on purpose to win. WAY big difference between a small scene of Olsen in a leotard vs a jacked Hemsworth naked and chained down as eye candy.

I'm sorry but your argument is obviously a shell game and you know it. To state a simple leotard scene is the same as shirtless, jacked dudes in long fan service scenes is absurd. Did you know Cavill stood around for 25 minutes shirtless in Justice League? Did Gal Gadot do that? NO. People complained about a 5 second pan past her booty or one frame of her skirt popping up and showing some granny panties. I flat out state I think your disingenuous at this point.

And its not a numbers game cause you assume the fallacy there must be parody in all things. Its simply not "your turn". There are no turns. If I have a backward BBQ I do not have to invite 50% women at the BBQ.

I am all for this movie and the new Snow White. And they need to double an triple the budgets. No one can reason with people like you and you are dead set on pounding holes in the bottom of the boat so let me help you cause I can swim and I know you can't. Yes I 100% favor destroying your kind with your very own horrible ideas.

WTF are you even talking about? Backwards BBQ? You're not even saying anything relative to the actual conversation. You're acting like I'm trying to CONVINCE you to watch Captain Marvel. I'm not. I'm telling you the REASON the things aren't how you want them to be. I.E. the REALITY of why there aren't naked women throwing themselves at your eyeballs on screen to compensate for you're whole 'but Chris Evens is shirtless all the time!!!' argument. That's LITERALLY all we're talking about right now. You and I aren't talking about that. Remove women's rights activism from your brain entirely right now, this is about math and logic.

When a bear shits in the woods, there's shit in the woods regardless of how you, me, or anyone else FEELS about it. I don't CARE if you look at the shit, I don't CARE what you do ABOUT the shit, but I do consider you a FOOL if you don't believe the shit EVEN EXISTS then go whine about the nonexistence of woodland bear shit while pretending like the evidence that bear's both factually shit, and factually live in the woods aren't corroborative facts leading to an all but certain observation.

Look, for the ten thousandth time, I don't care what you do, what you watch, who you watch it with, or who, or WHAT you fuck. Just don't do all the things you went, how you WANT to, and then bitch and moan about other things not being the way you want them WHILE simultaneously actively partaking in the sort of culture that is preventing it. You like SHiP, I like SHiP and that's where our similarities end. I don't mind if you don't wanna watch Captain Marvel, I don't care whose 'turn' it is. What does very much annoy me is your attitude where like 'I get to do whatever I want, and everything should be catered to me or I'll heroically whine about it' It's not heroic. You're not the libertarian superman fighting for naked superheroine rights. Don't DEFEND the lack of Superheroine material in one hand and WHINE that there's not enough cheesy pie naked superheroine content in the other, THATS all I'm saying. Cause the two are DIRECTLY relative concepts. Nowhere am I telling you that you MUST watch superheroine shit. No where am I telling you 'it's MY TURN NOW you chauvinist fucker!'

I'm giving you the fucking numbers. That's it. You interpret them how you want, but every time you interpret them POORLY it becomes more and more annoying that you need to be given the numbers AGAIN.

" Backwards BBQ? "
You do know what am misspelling is? Oh that's right, you're too busy "rebelling"

Well you go right ahead and rebel yourself into hell.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

" Backwards BBQ? "
You do know what am misspelling is? Oh that's right, you're too busy "rebelling"

Well you go right ahead and rebel yourself into hell.

If this was merely a grammatical error on your part or an 'autocorrect' I apologize that you were misinterpreted? If 'Backwards BBQ' is itself a conceptual phrase you'll have to explain yourself. I am not psychic and don't have any clue what you meant by it or meant to put there instead... from my perspective, you were speaking gibberish. it's probably irrelevant though because it continued on about how you don't 'need' to invite women to... something... We aren't talking about who you personally or anyone personally are 'required' to do while we are talking about 'why there aren't naked shirtless women equitable to shirtless Chris Evens and naked Thor.' which MAY well certainly have some gender politics assigned with it, but nothing whatsoever to do with my global point about actual factual DATA.

You may well and correctly say 'the numbers aren't everything, there are other factors involved' TRUE
You may bring them up and we may discuss them TRUE
But you don't get to see the numerical disparity and claim there's NO causal relationship whatsoever. To do so is blatant, stubborn, self imposed ignorance.

Rebel away.

Just to bring the argument to its core points: Is the first argument that superhero movies (and TV shows perhaps?) are moving away from shots and scenes making the superheroines look sexy? And is the second argument that superhero movies are sexualizing the men more than before or at least as much as ever? And is the latter point being made to show a double-standard in suggesting it is unacceptable to sexualize the female superheroes but more than acceptable to sexualize the male superheroes?

I have not done much research to contribute much to the discussion/argument/debate, but I have been someone who discovered Lynda Carter's Wonder Woman in the late 80s in reruns and became a SHIP fan ever since. I saw the changes in the comic books over the decades--a move in the 90s to sexualize the female characters (who had been sexualized in previous decades, but not to the extent I saw in 90s comics--Mike Deodato's super slim and high-cut WW outfit is just one example that immediately comes to mind). This continued into the 00s for a bit, but has definitely changed to an era of the least sexualized mainstream superheroines in over half a century (I emphasize mainstream as there are niche characters who are sexualized in other non-mainstream comics). Marvel and DC are cultural reflections to some extent, and I see how they have moved more towards removing a lot of the visual sexuality of their superheroines.

As for the discussion/argument/debate on the movies, there aren't many sequences I find titillating in any of the Marvel and DC movies of the past 20 years. The 1984 Supergirl movie had a few scenes that were, especially the one of Supergirl crawling through the mud in the Phantom Zone (and her brief fight with "the wind monster" as well as the liberty taken by one of the two smarmy truck drivers). I'll admit I have not seen every last Marvel and DC movie in the past 20 years, but I have seen quite a few of them and found no real sexualization of any female character. The closest for me was Black Widow in her Iron Man appearance. But in general, I don't think many superheroines are put in actual SHIP sequences in mainstream movies because 1) the risk of offending women, 2) the risk of the mainstream media criticism and claims of misogyny, and 3) no need for it to increase sales. Studios may not think they benefit by putting their superheroines in any precarious situation. The strong female superheroine who can do it all on her own = universal praise from the mainstream movie critics.

To shift the topic to a non-superheroine but a movie that might generate more debate on this topic because of what it says about the current culture and entertainment Industry, what of the Barbie movie? I have no interest in seeing it, but I am curious as to what the reviews--the honest ones, not those forced to praise it--will say about it. I have already seen how the mainstream news is falling all over itself to make it about conservatives/Republicans hating the movie because they are sexist or some other "ist". I have also heard how the movie is all about disparaging men and promoting the anti-patriarchy while emphasizing how women are always held back by men. I would be curious to read the comments by those here if anyone here happens to see it. My guess is if the movie ticket sales fall hard in the next week or two, perhaps there is something to "Barbie" being more of a lecture to America about men being sexist pigs. If the ticket sales don't fall, then the anti-"Barbie" rhetoric is overblown and inaccurate.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

theScribbler wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Good job not knowing the difference between highly rated vs low viewership. Here's a hint. Highly rated has nothing to do with viewership numbers.

No one cares what you think.

Good job nitpicking on my terminology. When I said "highly rated" I meant "high ratings" not how well the critics rated it on Rotten Tomatoes.
"Ratings" mean the number of people watching (as in the old term of "Nielsen ratings") and I said it was low-watched which should give you a hint of what I was intending to say.

The quote 'No one cares what you think' is out of context. As you're the King in Disingenuousness this is not a surprise shevek tactic. You be you.

Anyway,

You didn't say "highly rated" so you didn't mean "high ratings."

I will now quote you accurately (which you can't do for yourself)...

Here's the quote of your first full paragraph in your reply to jlocke about his liking Ms. Marvel.

shevek wrote: You're allowed to like whatever you want. Unfortunately, Ms. Marvel was an extremely low-rated TV series that wasn't watched very much, so not everyone shares your enthusiasm, obviously. It was so poorly received that Disney is running that series again on ABC, whose demographic average age is above 60 years old. That's how desperate they are to get Sana Amanat some significant audience for her self-insert character. It's their last chance to try and boost Kamala's Khan popularity before The Marvels comes out.

First, how gracious of you to allow someone to like what he wants.

Nowhere in this paragraph or all the follow up garbage text in your same post to jlocke did you say "highly rated." I can only conclude your penchant to make things up all the time is what led to your mistake.

Your next sentence...

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Unfortunately, Ms. Marvel was an extremely low-rated TV series that wasn't watched very much

Already discussed...
To say MM is extremely low-rated TV series is false. MM is a highly rated show. 98% tomatometer score and 80% audience score at RT.

---
If you meant to say (as you claim now) that MM had extremely low TV ratings meaning household viewer numbers than you should have said that. But that's not what you said or meant, that's just what you're now pretending you meant.

But let's go ahead and pretend that's what you meant.

Do you often have redundant clauses in your sentences? 'MM had extremely low TV ratings numbers (low viewership) and wasn't watched very much (redundant as in low viewership again).' That would be a stupid sentence.

Extremely low numbers?
775,000 household views is not extremely low. It's low relative to Marvel series, but not extremely.

Now compared to H-burgh view numbers, 775,000 household views would be gargantuan. Extremely High. Unheard of. Impossible even, unless hacker cheating bots were being used, but then the numbers would be a lie.

So 775,000 household views is many tens of thousands of people, and with households with 2 people watching, or 3 people watching, well beyond 775,000 individual people. Wish we had those numbers.

Here's some additional stats
775k US households watched the premiere of #MsMarvel. While less than other MCU series, it was a hit with #GenZ. Viewers age 20-24 watched at the highest rate of any MCU show, and it drew a more diverse audience with Black, Hispanic and Asian households watching at a higher rate.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

so not everyone shares your enthusiasm, obviously.

What's obvious, Producer of crap and glass 20% empty, is nothing you have to say can diminish the truth of 98% tomatometer score and 80% audience score at RT. The audience likes it 80%.






Monica Rambeau has a big role in Wandavision



Captain Marvel was a Huge Blockbuster movie. Box office over a Billion.



This should bode well for The Marvels movie. But we shall see. Glass 20% empty man notwithstanding.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

It was so poorly received that Disney is running that series again on ABC, whose demographic average age is above 60 years old. That's how desperate they are to get Sana Amanat some significant audience for her self-insert character. It's their last chance to try and boost Kamala's Khan popularity before The Marvels comes out.

Hah. Producer of crap and glass 20% empty man, you've uncovered perfect H-burgh Taglines!

H-burgh
So Poorly Received
How Desperate Are We
No Chances to Boost Popularity

OK, moving on...

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

You haven't refuted that fact, because you can't - it literally is the lowest-watched Marvel series of the current phase.
So instead, you danced around the terminology to try to stick it to me. Doesn't work, because everyone here knows what you're trying to do,
and "nobody cares what you think".

I'm not the one who refutes facts. That's your department. You are master of lies, not something I endeavor to be. You're welcome to be you.

MM is Highly Rated and Low Viewership. That's what's been reported, and no reason for me to say otherwise.

But pointing out your false statements is not sticking it to you. Maybe you feel it is cause you have to be right all the time. Yet seldom are.

Words mean what they mean, and your famous for not knowing what words actually mean. We've been down that road a number of times before. No dancing involved.

I know, you're having a hard time trying to come off as a genuine intellectual when you're a geniune pseudointellectual.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Also, I still won't respond to attacks on my person and my creativity in this thread, because that's not what this thread is about.

No need! Your creativity is basically stealing from Marvel and DC characters and stories and making slight changes of no consequence, cause virtually no one is seeing it. And those that do can instantly recognize bottom of the barrel material that if rated would be about 1% tomatometer score and 1% audience score at RT. Yes, being generous. You're welcome.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

It's about The Marvels.

Yes. Good call. This thread is about The Marvels. And yet...

Why do you laden it with all your anti woke, pseudointellectual persona, lies and Nazi propaganda in this thread.

That's not what this thread is about. You said so yourself.

You say Dogfish is disingenuous!? You?!

How many numerous thread topics have there been where you find ways to insert your delusional agenda. Converting no other member in the process, but trying so hard to. Look how you're trying and failing to convert Dogfish, while Dogfish and other's politely wipe the floor with your crap.

So where's Waldo? in this shevek propaganda unconvincing and unconverting reply to Dogfish. (by Waldo I mean The Marvels.)

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

You're getting so close to why these times are different than those times but you refuse to recognize it because you're still being disingenuous about the similarities and differences.

Yes! Fair play, don't discriminate, values like that existed in American history but JUST LIKE YOU SAY those values were from sources that UPHELD Western Civ: Judeo-Christian values and Greco-Roman politics and philosophy. None of that was explicitly anti-capitalist ("anti-greed" is different than opposing capitalism in its entirety) and the anti-Semitism of the time (against which the Jewish comic creators railed, quite rightly as you say) came from right-wing and religious fundamentalist sources (the Bund, Father Coughlin, etc.) not the left wing, which was in fact mostly Jewish itself. One of the big reasons Nazis hated Communists back then is because *a lot of them were Jews*!

'Wokeness' is not the same thing as classical Western Enlightenment values. It's clearly Communist, but it's not even classical Communist. It's neo-Communist, based on the teachings of intersectionalism and critical race theory, etc. It's anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-Zionist (with a constant undercurrent of anti-Semitism as a whole), like the anti-colonialist attitudes of new African countries in the 60s (they were all of those things) but updated to include women, POCs, LGBTs, and several other intersections. It wants to tear down every Western power structure and hand the power over to those who claim to be oppressed. Wokeness is a revolutionary doctrine; basic Western values are not at this point.

That's why I say you're being disingenuous about it. Yes, China is a huge problem. China is an even bigger problem because it basically owns Africa which is the final place on Earth that needs serious uplifting in quality of life. But so is wokeness ("intersectionalism") which was birthed in American academia and coddled in European Antifa groups. Both are the problems, and they are intertwined. China hates wokeness in its own homeland, but it is more than happy to encourage it in the West, because neo-Marxism makes the West weak, decadent, and polarized. Much easier for China to take over that way.

So yes, we should be worried a lot about China (which is why I don't have a Tiktok). But wokeness is also a considerable albatross.

So let's see, shevek politics and propaganda includes...

---
If you, Dogfish (or anyone else), don't agree with shevek then you're still being disingenuous about the similarities and differences.

Nazis hated communists cause a lot of them were Jews

Wokeness is clearly communist

Wokeness is anti-capitalist, anti-American, anti-Western

Wokeness wants to tear down every Western power structure and hand the power over to those who claim to be oppressed [Wait... is Wokeness Steve Bannon's Superzero name?]

Wokeness is a revolutionary doctrine

Wokeness makes west weak, decadent, and polarized

Wokeness is a considerable albatross

---
Wow. So much shevek political crap that belongs in Phantom Zone. Sad.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

One of the big reasons Nazis hated Communists back then is because *a lot of them were Jews*!

I'll submit just this little article from the American Jewish Committee site, then move on.

https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/Jewish-communist

---
Jewish communist
: a person who supports the principles of communism, a political and socio-economic ideology, in which all goods are publicly owned as opposed to privately or state owned, and social classes are eliminated

WHEN IT’S ANTISEMITIC:

image: A cartoon depicting ‘Marxists’ punching Uncle Sam which has often been used as a code word for Jews and is antisemtiic when Jews are blamed for communist oppression

A tweet shared in July 2018.
‘Marxists’ has often been used as a code word for Jews and is antisemitic when Jews are blamed for communist oppression

“Jewish communism,” or “Judeo-Bolshevism,” is an antisemitic conspiracy theory that states Jews have been behind communist revolutions around the world. Leon Trotsky was a political ideologue, who happened to be Jewish, who was personified by the Russian Czarist government as a symbol for Jewish Bolshevism. Nazi Germany invoked the antisemitic “Judeo-Bolshevism” myth to blame Jews for Germany’s woes after World War I. While some Jews were communists and fought in the Red Army during World War II, labeling all Jews as communists is antisemitic. Another code word invoked is “Marxists,” after Karl Marx, who, despite being of Jewish descent, decried Judaism and blamed Jewish merchants for promoting capitalism
---

Please keep your antisemitic conspiracy theories to yourself. We don't need them here.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

If you really care so much about attacking me because (as you say) you feel that it's "fun" for you to attack a small producer, then make a thread about how terribly I'm supposedly doing, and then I'll respond to you in full and utterly refute you. Otherwise, there's nothing left to say.

I didn't say I cared much, those are your words. If truths about H-burgh and you bother you, don't read them.

H-burgh is a small, pale, weak, imitation of DC and Marvel and that's OK.

You're allowed to like whatever you want, even your own output derived mostly from other's creativity.
Unfortunately, It's an extremely low-rated collection of videos, that isn't watched very much.
Not everyone shares your enthusiasm, obviously.
So poorly received that it has no demographic average age worth calculating.
How desperate HB is to get some audience.
Last chance to boost popularity before some date is as stupid here as when shevek wrote similar earlier.

What's to refute!? I'm not wrong

theScribbler is right... about everything... this is gonna be a winner. And they need to make 20 more at triple the budget.

You people are exhausting me with your bitter diatribes here; especially those that are pointedly personal. Any more personal attacks on this thread and I will lock it down.

Given the large time and effort invested, perhaps should be more enjoyable to consume.

The latest Marvel movie, or this topic?

I'm pretty excited to see what superheroine producers will do with the new Captain Marvel costumes. I know the dark one is new, but the blue and red one looks updated since Endgame.

This looks like a fun movie. Ms. Marvel was a surprisingly fun show. I had low expectations due to the Avengers video game featuring the character.

I'm just glad they at least dropped the butch haircut from Endgame...

Saw it Thursday. Liked it. Had fun. I give it 6.7/10

6.7/10 is GENEROUS...

Marvel needs to rip it's head out of the sand. Nobody behind the wheel cares anymore and it's NAKEDLY obvious. You can't deliver this much shit consistently unless you're actively trying, or incompetent, and I WILL give them the benefit of the doubt to assume they aren't actively TRYING to tank their billion dollar franchise... but f'k me has marvel really gone to shit. Used to be nearly every marvel film was a banger and you got the very occasional whiff of poo... nowadays it's like a sea of shit and occasionally you stumble upon a tic tac. A few 'acceptable' properties accidentally poop out just by nature of '1000 monkeys at a typewriter' putting together a crew that actually cares about what they are making once in a while still. Your Loki's and GotG3....... but good lord. Multiverse of Madness, Thor 3, Quantumania and now the Marvels are unironically the WORST CRAP Marvel has shit out in its entire run, all on our end.

I've reached the 'star wars the last jedi' point with Marvel right now, in that I just don't give a shit anymore. It's boring, they're boring me, and I only have a finite amount of life to waste on films and television, and from this moment on, as with Star Wars crap, I'm going to need to hear ALARMING amounts of positive word of mouth to even look its way anymore.

Marvel's dead. The Marvels didn't necessarily kill it personally... but it's the floating rot that proves its been dead for awhile now. I'd blame multiverses... but even that's just a symptom, the blame for this one lies on the committee table covered in garbage no one cares enough to clean off anymore.

Femina wrote: ↑

2 years ago

6.7/10 is GENEROUS...

No it isn't. It's one person's subjective opinion. Mine.

Femina wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Marvel needs to rip it's head out of the sand. Nobody behind the wheel cares anymore and it's NAKEDLY obvious. You can't deliver this much shit consistently unless you're actively trying, or incompetent, and I WILL give them the benefit of the doubt to assume they aren't actively TRYING to tank their billion dollar franchise... but f'k me has marvel really gone to shit. Used to be nearly every marvel film was a banger and you got the very occasional whiff of poo... nowadays it's like a sea of shit and occasionally you stumble upon a tic tac. A few 'acceptable' properties accidentally poop out just by nature of '1000 monkeys at a typewriter' putting together a crew that actually cares about what they are making once in a while still. Your Loki's and GotG3....... but good lord. Multiverse of Madness, Thor 3, Quantumania and now the Marvels are unironically the WORST CRAP Marvel has shit out in its entire run, all on our end.

I've reached the 'star wars the last jedi' point with Marvel right now, in that I just don't give a shit anymore. It's boring, they're boring me, and I only have a finite amount of life to waste on films and television, and from this moment on, as with Star Wars crap, I'm going to need to hear ALARMING amounts of positive word of mouth to even look its way anymore.

Marvel's dead. The Marvels didn't necessarily kill it personally... but it's the floating rot that proves its been dead for awhile now. I'd blame multiverses... but even that's just a symptom, the blame for this one lies on the committee table covered in garbage no one cares enough to clean off anymore.

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't share it. Almost none of it. Didn't see Quantumania, but was disappointed with Thor 3 and Multiverse of Madness. That's where we somewhat agree.

I liked The Marvels better than Multiverse of Madness and Thor 3. In terms of how I felt about the movie right after seeing it. I was not bored, I'll see it again gladly.

Just a moment ago, I looked and saw Rotten Tomato current audience consensus score is 85%. Mine is 67%. Apparently I'm not that generous.

More interesting to me than the scores at RT is the audience short review comments. I'm right there with the over 3 stars (over 60% scoring) commenters.

Rotten Tomatoes: audience-score-reviews

Have not seen it yet but from the clips, Bree looks MUCH sexier, tighter costume, perfect blonde hair and a face that could be kissed for hours!!!

I think marvel and Disney need to make more of these movies. Many more. And double and triple the budgets. And everyone has to be trans and they have to have musical spots in every movie.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I think marvel and Disney need to make more of these movies. Many more. And double and triple the budgets. And everyone has to be trans and they have to have musical spots in every movie.

Couldn't agree more!

DrDominator9 wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I think marvel and Disney need to make more of these movies. Many more. And double and triple the budgets. And everyone has to be trans and they have to have musical spots in every movie.

Couldn't agree more!

And we need to let them know that failing and going bankrupt isn't important cause they are doing the right thing and that's all that matters.

What a bunch of thrown-together nonsense. (Yes, I watched the whole thing.)

All I can say is that I hope at least that Roy Thomas is getting some payments out of this at his advanced age of 82.
I met him at HersheyCon, got him to sign some comics, and he seemed super nice.

Grace is spot on with her commentary IMO.

theScribbler wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Grace is spot on with her commentary IMO.

I don't agree with her that these film makers are victims of fans wanting to cancel them if they make a mistake.

It is nice, however, that people are coming around to seeing this stuff isn't working and people are changing their minds about it. That's all I want really, just to get past this and get back to good movies.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

theScribbler wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Grace is spot on with her commentary IMO.

I don't agree with her that these film makers are victims of fans wanting to cancel them if they make a mistake.

It is nice, however, that people are coming around to seeing this stuff isn't working and people are changing their minds about it. That's all I want really, just to get past this and get back to good movies.

These film makers failed to sufficiently reach the demographics that they wanted to target with this film, That's what Grace says near the 6 minute mark.

Will they learn their lesson, and scrap the 'Champions' themed movie which seems to be indicated at the end, something that even less people want to see than The Marvels? I'm guessing not.

Grace also emphasizes several other major points which the Youtuber media-skeptics have been saying for years:
- Too many female characters that nobody has heard of and nobody is connecting with (i.e. almost none of them have the charisma and sex appeal to carry a movie or TV show except Scarlet J)
- Not enough diversity of actually exciting stories (as opposed to diversity in identity)
- Brie Larson turning off a substantial chunk of the audience with her public statements

Now, these are not the only gripes she has - there are plenty of others. But these are the ones that we've been mentioning all along.

Also...somewhere along the way, Lashana Lynch got typecast by the woke producer cabal as 'stern black warrior woman' (see No Time to Die and Woman King) and

Spoiler

the Binary costume in the mid-credits scene simply does not look good on her. They should have put that costume on Brie instead at the point in the movie where she recharges Hala's sun.

It's pretty simple - the abandoned audiences who didn't come out for The Marvels are biding their time to see what happens with X-Men.

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

These film makers failed to sufficiently reach the demographics that they wanted to target with this film, That's what Grace says near the 6 minute mark.

I don't agree that was their goal to reach that group. They do field tests and focus groups. They would have realized this a long time ago. They would have quickly discovered that group has no money and never spends money on anything.

I do agree with Grace that if you want women you have to have some male eye candy in the movie. The obligatory shirts off scenes.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I think marvel and Disney need to make more of these movies. Many more. And double and triple the budgets. And everyone has to be trans and they have to have musical spots in every movie.

I agree that such movies must be made for the good of society, but obviously it is too important a task to be left to capitalists even woke ones like Disney. The government must nationalize the movie industry so as to remove the profit motive. The taxpayers can then provide enormous budgets for such socially beneficial projects even if no one wants to see them. Perhaps under those circumstances watching should be made compulsory.

GWalb wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I think marvel and Disney need to make more of these movies. Many more. And double and triple the budgets. And everyone has to be trans and they have to have musical spots in every movie.

I agree that such movies must be made for the good of society, but obviously it is too important a task to be left to capitalists even woke ones like Disney. The government must nationalize the movie industry so as to remove the profit motive. The taxpayers can then provide enormous budgets for such socially beneficial projects even if no one wants to see them. Perhaps under those circumstances watching should be made compulsory.

We really are so close to Two Minutes Hate already as it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Minutes_Hate

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

These film makers failed to sufficiently reach the demographics that they wanted to target with this film, That's what Grace says near the 6 minute mark.

I don't agree that was their goal to reach that group. They do field tests and focus groups. They would have realized this a long time ago. They would have quickly discovered that group has no money and never spends money on anything.

I do agree with Grace that if you want women you have to have some male eye candy in the movie. The obligatory shirts off scenes.

Actually, I wasn't talking about the tiny contingent of blue-hairs who yammer about everything. Of course they have no money, and in addition, their numbers are infinitesimal except on college campuses, in protest marches, and behind coffee shop counters in hipster neighborhoods (I live in one, so I know).

I was referring to the stats that Grace presented: the failures to reach most females in general, and audiences under 33 years of age.
Both of those demographics, as a whole, have quite a lot of money to spend.
And you're right, this movie was not the way to reach them. You want to reach women, you have to put good-looking guys in the movie.

As it is, the only male presences on the screen for any length of time were a long-haired Asian dandy who sings instead of talking (the Prince), old Sam Jackson, an ugly Skrull king, and another one of those chubby black tech nerds (like Chunk from Flash). Women aren't going to the theater to see any of that. They're just not.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

shevek wrote: ↑

2 years ago

These film makers failed to sufficiently reach the demographics that they wanted to target with this film, That's what Grace says near the 6 minute mark.

I do agree with Grace that if you want women you have to have some male eye candy in the movie. The obligatory shirts off scenes.

But us Lesbians......hahaha seriously....But I agree...Thor Love & Thunder....talk about a God body...all that hard work and at least we got to see what we did...wanted more!!!

Just came back from the cinema.

Great movie, very entertaining!

I gave it 88%. One of the best movies I saw this year.

I was worried beforehand, since I do not watch any of the tv shows. I thought it might be more difficult to follow than Captain Marvel, but it was easy enough with what I had picked up here and there. I probably missed some connections, especially since I am not a comics reader, but the main story was self sustained enough to work fine for me.
The only thing I was missing here was the chemistry between Carol and Maria from the first movie, though at least it was kind of acknowledged.

And finally a movie that understands it does not need to be three hours long to tell a story, like that overlong bloated mess of a movie Endgame.

Saw it twice. Loved it more the 2nd time. Solid film, great action scenes

GWalb wrote: ↑

2 years ago

Mr. X wrote: ↑

2 years ago

I think marvel and Disney need to make more of these movies. Many more. And double and triple the budgets. And everyone has to be trans and they have to have musical spots in every movie.

I agree that such movies must be made for the good of society, but obviously it is too important a task to be left to capitalists even woke ones like Disney. The government must nationalize the movie industry so as to remove the profit motive. The taxpayers can then provide enormous budgets for such socially beneficial projects even if no one wants to see them. Perhaps under those circumstances watching should be made compulsory.

Oh no! Reverse psychology? They've discovered wokes weakness everybody, the wokes are really scared now!

It's that time again. That time for Pitch Meetings!

"Full disclosure I did one of those take your daughter to work days and let my 4 year old take a crack at some of these scenes"

It's ironic that by all accounts one of the better recent movies has walked straight into the general fatigue with superhero movies.

It's an insurmountable problem for the MCU. Fans will still want to watch, but for the average folks the story of the MCU peaked at Endgame. Nothing since then has had anything approaching that sense of substance.

This is doubly true since they leaned into the mutliverse stuff that people really don't give a shit about. I think Rick and Morty can take credit for that one.

I didn't notice this before, but The Marvels is still trending on Twitter, as Disney tries desperately to get people to watch it online who didn't go to the theaters, so I figured it was still relevant enough to mention.

There's a Canadian actress, Maitreyi Ramakrishnan (now age 22), who openly scorned the idea of portraying Kamala Khan because she is Tamil and Kamala is Pakistani. This actress went to school in Canada for "human rights and equity studies" and was inculcated with identity politics that is "blood-based" but she doesn't understand the difference between being Tamil (which is an ethnicity) and Pakistani (which is a nationality).

https://comicbook.com/tv-shows/news/ms- ... pool-role/

"Pakistanis" as are diverse ethnically as Americans: the majority are Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun, Saraiki, Muhajir or Baloch. However, never once in any Ms Marvel comic or TV episode that I've seen has she or her family ever identified as any of those ethnicities. I can't even find mention of what ethnicity her creator Sana Amanat is. If her family speaks Urdu, it's a much greater indicator of their religion (Muslim) than it is of any particular ethnicity in Pakistan, although she could be Muhajir since they do speak Urdu. Regardless, it's never mentioned what ethnicity Kamala is.

This leaves Kamala Khan's ethnicity up for grabs. There are, in fact, 5000 Tamils who live in Pakistan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamils_in_Pakistan
Therefore, Kamala could theoretically be Tamil, and she could simply also speak Urdu as a common lingua franca.

Also, Maitreyi herself doesn't even have a Tamil name. Her name, Maitreyi Ramakrishnan, is clearly Hindi and Sanskrit. She's mostly likely a Hindu.
So, it wasn't really at all about a "Tamil playing a Pakistani". That reason was disingenuous. The real reason is that she is afraid what would happen if a Hindu played a Muslim (which, again, should theoretically be fine, because acting). That's what I really think was going on here, but she was afraid to say it.

Coming out of the Equity Studies department of her local university, Maitreyi talks about "representation" as if she knows what it means. She doesn't. Kamala Khan is not a real person. She is a character that an actress would be playing. Therefore, it's not the actress who creates the "representation" for Pakistanis or Muslims. It's the CHARACTER ITSELF. Pakistanis should be proud to see ANY actress who looks South Asian and has good dramatic skills playing the role of a Pakistani-Muslim teenage girl. It shouldn't matter at all whether the actress herself is Pakistani or Muslim, as long as she does a good job in the role!

In addition, Marvel made a boo-boo by not considering or trying to convince/entice Maitreyi to play this role. Why? Because Maitreyi is the most popular Indian actress in North America under the age of 25. She has over 200,000 followers on Twitter. She has/had a hit show produced by Mindy Kaling called "Never Have I Ever", which ran for four seasons on Netfilx and garnered views from 40 million households. it looks exceedingly woke, but I'm going to watch a few episodes of it to get a sense of Maitreyi's acting skills.

Maitreyi is gorgeous, and would have looked exceedingly attractive in the Ms Marvel outfit.
They made a big mistake not trying to at least pursue casting her in the role. Money and fame would have talked.

That's my argument. Nothing much has changed recently with the financial fate of the Marvels: it was a huge loss for Disney.
I think the selection of Vellani was partially responsible for contributing to that. She didn't necessarily do a bad job, but she could only work with what she had. If they had selected a classically beautiful South Asian actress, the visual appeal of the character would have immensely increased, along with worldwide box office. I'm not saying it's an overall solution, but it certainly would have helped mitigate the problem.

Anyone else think so?

The failure of the DCEU proves that hotness can't fix badness.

You've got two there from DC which gave us Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman and Zoe Kravitz as Catwoman. Meanwhile if you don't think Scarlett Johanssen is hot you're some kind of unprecdented turbogay and I can't help you.