BurtReynolds wrote:To the extent this is made for "everyone", the fact that it's a marvel superhero movie is the entirety of its targeted appeal to men. Everything else about it from the tone, themes, cast, etc. is to appeal to women (I think mostly wrongly for the most part, but that's a bit of a different subject.) And , no, just because you like those things as well does not matter for what I'm talking about.
You're forgetting the part where EVERYONE loves cats, not just me.
If you're going to make any argument for who it was targeted towards, the answer is kids, teens, young adults, but I am telling you as someone who actually watched the movie and is part of its target audience, you're wrong if you think it was targeted towards women beyond the all-women leads and even then its a pretty thin argument.
I'm telling you that making a movie about female characters, with a female cast and a female director (ostensibly to be better able to understand female perspectives) is itself part of the calculation to determine who a movie is made to target. It's not the whole thing obviously. Obviously it's technically possible that you could primarily target males with a movie like that, but that's not usually the case. How can anyone possibly disagree with that?
I couldn't tell you who directed this one. I can also tell you there wasn't some big yassification of a story either. It was a story about collateral damage that comes with wielding power and how forgiveness can help you get past that. It seemed more like an allegory for WWI's treaty decimating Germany causing WWII.
As far as i can tell, it's a bog standard Marvel plot. I haven't heard any overt or combative feminist themes, even from a lot of anti-woke youtuber types who are usually quick to point it out. If that stuff was in there, it sounds like it was scrubbed out. The theme I was mainly alluding to was the general sisterhood thing.
Mecca wrote:
I think you're confusing appealing to and targeting. Sure, there's some consideration of "who is this for?" when greenlighting, but my own experience is that they didn't lean on one gender or the other in their marketing. All of my male MCU-loving friends were talking about if we saw it yet or not. Even my friend who complained loudly about Captain Marvel back then was about seeing it. These movies are targeted towards kids and people who grew up with the source material or just plain old MCU lovers.
In wrestling, those people are called marks, and their money is assumed to already be taken, and thus the promotions don't have to appeal to them.
BurtReynolds wrote:To the extent this is made for "everyone", the fact that it's a marvel superhero movie is the entirety of its targeted appeal to men. Everything else about it from the tone, themes, cast, etc. is to appeal to women (I think mostly wrongly for the most part, but that's a bit of a different subject.) And , no, just because you like those things as well does not matter for what I'm talking about.
You're forgetting the part where EVERYONE loves cats, not just me.
If you're going to make any argument for who it was targeted towards, the answer is kids, teens, young adults, but I am telling you as someone who actually watched the movie and is part of its target audience, you're wrong if you think it was targeted towards women beyond the all-women leads and even then its a pretty thin argument.
I'm telling you that making a movie about female characters, with a female cast and a female director (ostensibly to be better able to understand female perspectives) is itself part of the calculation to determine who a movie is made to target. It's not the whole thing obviously. Obviously it's technically possible that you could primarily target males with a movie like that, but that's not usually the case. How can anyone possibly disagree with that?
I couldn't tell you who directed this one. I can also tell you there wasn't some big yassification of a story either. It was a story about collateral damage that comes with wielding power and how forgiveness can help you get past that. It seemed more like an allegory for WWI's treaty decimating Germany causing WWII.
As far as i can tell, it's a bog standard Marvel plot. I haven't heard any overt or combative feminist themes, even from a lot of anti-woke youtuber types who are usually quick to point it out. If that stuff was in there, it sounds like it was scrubbed out. The theme I was mainly alluding to was the general sisterhood thing.
Mecca wrote:
I think you're confusing appealing to and targeting. Sure, there's some consideration of "who is this for?" when greenlighting, but my own experience is that they didn't lean on one gender or the other in their marketing. All of my male MCU-loving friends were talking about if we saw it yet or not. Even my friend who complained loudly about Captain Marvel back then was about seeing it. These movies are targeted towards kids and people who grew up with the source material or just plain old MCU lovers.
In wrestling, those people are called marks, and their money is assumed to already be taken, and thus the promotions don't have to appeal to them.
Brother, I know wrestling and a mark is someone who believes that its real. Either way:
1: the demographics for this one skewed more male than Captain Marvel by a fair amount (39% vs 45%). What accounts for that disparity? Is Mecca right that the reason for this disparity is that The Marvels wasn't made to appeal to women, unlike the first movie? This, to put it lightly, does not ring true for me in the slightest. Do women just have better taste? Maybe.
2: Disney seems to be failing to appeal to women with the strategies they've been (mono-maniacally) pushing for the last few years, and they've no doubt lost a chunk of male audiences as well. And unless they plan on losing even more money over the next few years, they will likely change those strategies. My guess is that Barbie is the blueprint going forward if they have even a tiny amount of common sense.
1 and 2 where do you get your information? Marvel last phase was not what they were expecting mostly because their stories sucked hard. Even more, they chose to bring characters like Eternals or Shang Chi who are not well known at all. Also, they made a lot of half baked tv shows that probably got people burnt out with all these stuff....but mostly, it all felt unnecessary.
If your point is that marvel made this movie mostly for women because of the cast and director, i dont see the problem if thats the case. Like i said before i think their failed at making a proper sequel to their successful first Captain Marvel movie because they just jammed too much stuff and they didnt know how to proper market this one, or they knew they had a horrible movie and tried to bury it.
1: the demographics for this one skewed more male than Captain Marvel by a fair amount (39% vs 45%). What accounts for that disparity? Is Mecca right that the reason for this disparity is that The Marvels wasn't made to appeal to women, unlike the first movie? This, to put it lightly, does not ring true for me in the slightest. Do women just have better taste? Maybe.
2: Disney seems to be failing to appeal to women with the strategies they've been (mono-maniacally) pushing for the last few years, and they've no doubt lost a chunk of male audiences as well. And unless they plan on losing even more money over the next few years, they will likely change those strategies. My guess is that Barbie is the blueprint going forward if they have even a tiny amount of common sense.
1 and 2 where do you get your information? Marvel last phase was not what they were expecting mostly because their stories sucked hard. Even more, they chose to bring characters like Eternals or Shang Chi who are not well known at all. Also, they made a lot of half baked tv shows that probably got people burnt out with all these stuff....but mostly, it all felt unnecessary.
If your point is that marvel made this movie mostly for women because of the cast and director, i dont see the problem if thats the case. Like i said before i think their failed at making a proper sequel to their successful first Captain Marvel movie because they just jammed too much stuff and they didnt know how to proper market this one, or they knew they had a horrible movie and tried to bury it.
There are plenty of reasons it bombed, but it's interesting that it bombed harder with women than it did with men, despite the fact that it's clearly made to appeal to women (yes it is). The reasons you gave would only account for it bombing with both groups equally.
BurtReynolds wrote:despite the fact that it's clearly made to appeal to women (yes it is)
You have asserted this a bunch of times without clarifying what you mean, aside from vaguely mentioning "the tone" and "the themes" even though the tones and the themes aren't much different from anything else in the MCU. Is it just that Argo liked it?
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
Like of course they wanted women to like it, but there's really nothing I can think of in the movie itself to support the notion that it was made primarily to appeal to women
One of the movie's biggest problems is how broad and bland and not different it is
Anders wrote:I do not have a «neoliberal assessment of geopolitics», so please stop writing that I do.
BurtReynolds wrote:despite the fact that it's clearly made to appeal to women (yes it is)
You have asserted this a bunch of times without clarifying what you mean, aside from vaguely mentioning "the tone" and "the themes" even though the tones and the themes aren't much different from anything else in the MCU. Is it just that Argo liked it?
If you were to read about a scene in a movie with a planet where people sang everything, would you assume that was a movie primarily for boys or girls?
BurtReynolds wrote:If you were to read about a scene in a movie with a planet where people sang everything, would you assume that was a movie primarily for boys or girls?
I would assume it's primarily made for people who aren't me
wtf
