- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Drinker: Hollywood Is Abandoning "The Message"
Posted on 8/5/24 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 8/5/24 at 12:41 pm
Apparently, according to Film Threat's Chris Gore, Kevin Feige has been quietly cleaning house and letting go certain producers that would be considered "activists."
11
Posted on 8/5/24 at 12:43 pm to RollTide1987
Hopefully they understand that people don't want a message in their movies. They want to watch a movie to escape the bullshite of everyday life for a couple of hours. Its why films like Top Gun and Twisters do well.
Posted on 8/5/24 at 12:49 pm to RollTide1987
They will just try to be more subtle about it.
Posted on 8/5/24 at 12:50 pm to RollTide1987
This story comes out about ever 6 months whether it’s Star Wars or marvel
Posted on 8/5/24 at 12:54 pm to RollTide1987
Kevin Feige is an activist. He should fire himself too.
Posted on 8/5/24 at 1:06 pm to NIH
quote:
This story comes out about ever 6 months whether it’s Star Wars or marvel
you're right, but i havent heard the drinker say it.
Posted on 8/5/24 at 1:14 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
Hopefully they understand that people don't want a message in their movies.
I mean you'll never get away from this entirely, its more of a problem when they practically beat you over the head with it
I think the MCU's bigger issue has been no real direction for the last few phases and shelving your most popular IP while trying to establish the lady, kid avengers no one is asking for. They've been chasing a market that's not really there and are now realizing that. They'd continue the agenda if it were profitable for them.
Posted on 8/5/24 at 1:20 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
Hopefully they understand that people don't want a message in their movies.
I think "messages" are fine, but generally speaking are in very broad terms.
For example, there's a message to "Shawshank Redemption" but I don't think it has a direct real-world association with most people (as in, most people don't go to jail for a crime they didn't commit but still feel guilty for occurring, then get pulled into a scheme from a corrupt warden to embezzle money) but rather the tale of seeking redemption through perseverance and staying true to your moral center.
I think THOSE kinds of messages work well (broad ones, like "be kind to those in need" and "persevere through adversity"). Messages where you, the viewer, are told "you're a pile of shite" don't go over well, and just serve to alienate half your audience regardless of which message you attach to said "you're a pile of shite".
Why Top Gun: Maverick did so well is that it DID have a message, in that "those who came before still having some to teach" while "no matter how much you know, every experience will have you learning something new." I'd also add the "despite your age, never presume you don't have something to offer" though that was probably more of a personal interpretation than an actual message the movie was trying to convey.
About the only movies that truly don't have SOME kind of message are absurdist comedies (Airplane!, Scary Movie, etc.) and instead are just trying to make you laugh (which might be a message in of itself, honestly).
Posted on 8/5/24 at 2:19 pm to skrayper
quote:
I think "messages" are fine, but generally speaking are in very broad terms.
For example, there's a message to "Shawshank Redemption" but I don't think it has a direct real-world association with most people (as in, most people don't go to jail for a crime they didn't commit but still feel guilty for occurring, then get pulled into a scheme from a corrupt warden to embezzle money) but rather the tale of seeking redemption through perseverance and staying true to your moral center.
I think THOSE kinds of messages work well (broad ones, like "be kind to those in need" and "persevere through adversity"). Messages where you, the viewer, are told "you're a pile of shite" don't go over well, and just serve to alienate half your audience regardless of which message you attach to said "you're a pile of shite".
Why Top Gun: Maverick did so well is that it DID have a message, in that "those who came before still having some to teach" while "no matter how much you know, every experience will have you learning something new." I'd also add the "despite your age, never presume you don't have something to offer" though that was probably more of a personal interpretation than an actual message the movie was trying to convey.
About the only movies that truly don't have SOME kind of message are absurdist comedies (Airplane!, Scary Movie, etc.) and instead are just trying to make you laugh (which might be a message in of itself, honestly).
You are correct, I should have clarified that they don't have a clearly politically motived message that is forced down your throat.
edit: I hope this comment is within the new board rules. I tried to be vague and not insert my political views on anything or site anything with in a specific movie.
This post was edited on 8/5/24 at 2:21 pm
Posted on 8/5/24 at 2:22 pm to RollTide1987
Not all of Hollywood just Marvel studios
Posted on 8/5/24 at 2:23 pm to RollTide1987
Hollywood both knows and fears The Drinker. His branding of The Message has devastated the industry by revealing its real agenda, even though everyone could see it.
Much like Nerdrotic's M-She-U, the Drinker puts a mirror in front of Hollywood and they did NOT like what they saw.
Posted on 8/5/24 at 2:36 pm to Madking
quote:
Not all of Hollywood just Marvel studios
Nah. Twisters could have easily fallen into the trap but instead they made Glen Powell's character every bit the equal to that played by Daisy Edgar-Jones. They even embraced his masculinity for a change. Instead of pushing a feminist message, it was just a movie about a couple of storm chasers entertaining us for two hours. As a result it will finish well north of $200 million in the United States.
Posted on 8/5/24 at 3:20 pm to RollTide1987
It was just a matter of time. Hollywood is still all about the almighty dollar. If preaching these stupid messages would have made box office receipts go up they would be doubling down on them.
Posted on 8/5/24 at 3:27 pm to RollTide1987
We’ll see but what Gore is talking about is info he received about Marvel Studios specifically.
Posted on 8/5/24 at 3:32 pm to Bert Macklin FBI
quote:
You are correct, I should have clarified that they don't have a clearly politically motived message that is forced down your throat.
edit: I hope this comment is within the new board rules. I tried to be vague and not insert my political views on anything or site anything with in a specific movie.
I, personally, wouldn't think that simply saying "movies should avoid specific political messages" runs afoul of the rules.
Someone hijacking said thread to make those kinds of statements definitely would though.
Simply saying, "I prefer movies that have simple, heartwarming messages over political ones" is something I think most people, on either side, would wholeheartedly agree with.
Posted on 8/5/24 at 3:57 pm to RollTide1987
There's a lot to take in, but I do take umbrage at the "male and pale" take from both sides.
We weren't demanding white male heroes and white male heroes only.
We just wanted the non-white male heroes to have the same type of character arcs and interactions as the white male heroes.
RDJ's Iron Man wasn't beloved because he remained an arrogant prick from the beginning of the first movie until he died in Endgame; he learned a lot from his time in that cave and became a better person. He still had swagger, but it was tempered with an understanding of the consequences of his actions and inventions. He had a hero's journey, which, while done quite often, is the best way to introduce your protagonist because it ENDEARS the audience to the protagonist.
We loved Chadwick Bosman's T'Challa because he had a similar arc in Civil War (being driven to revenge for his father's death, to that amazing scene between him and Zemo near the climax of the story) and it was, frustrating, that he didn't get nearly as compelling an arc in his own movie but we already liked him by then. We didn't need Black Panther to figure out how we felt about the character because we already knew.
Contrast that with how we are introduced to both Captain Marvel and Ironheart (one in her own movie, the other in someone else's movie). We are not given any reason to LIKE these characters; instead, we are TOLD by other characters how great or likeable these characters are.
Messaging or not, the simple fact of the matter is that it became a shield for bad storytelling. Give us a compelling protagonist (Ripley in Aliens is a REALLY good example of one from a while back) and we will like them. It isn't a dislike of strong female characters, it's the presentation of "here's this character, like them" instead of "here's this character, here's how they grow into someone likeable".
Look at the first three Avengers (not including Hulk) and how they are introduced:
2 (Tony Stark and Thor) start off capable but arrogant, brash, hotheaded... and learn something throughout the course of their first movie to become likeable and relatable.
The other one, Captain America, starts out likeable but not capable (versus the other two) and therefor we root for him to become capable. He's still not winning every fight he's in, but he had the inverse arc of the other two.
Being introduced to a character with no flaws and no growth only works in movies with thin plots (like old school action movies where the plot is just a reason to get on with the action) or things like comedies and horror movies. If you want a compelling story to go along with your action, then you have to give us compelling characters. TELLING us the character is compelling doesn't magically make them so.
We weren't demanding white male heroes and white male heroes only.
We just wanted the non-white male heroes to have the same type of character arcs and interactions as the white male heroes.
RDJ's Iron Man wasn't beloved because he remained an arrogant prick from the beginning of the first movie until he died in Endgame; he learned a lot from his time in that cave and became a better person. He still had swagger, but it was tempered with an understanding of the consequences of his actions and inventions. He had a hero's journey, which, while done quite often, is the best way to introduce your protagonist because it ENDEARS the audience to the protagonist.
We loved Chadwick Bosman's T'Challa because he had a similar arc in Civil War (being driven to revenge for his father's death, to that amazing scene between him and Zemo near the climax of the story) and it was, frustrating, that he didn't get nearly as compelling an arc in his own movie but we already liked him by then. We didn't need Black Panther to figure out how we felt about the character because we already knew.
Contrast that with how we are introduced to both Captain Marvel and Ironheart (one in her own movie, the other in someone else's movie). We are not given any reason to LIKE these characters; instead, we are TOLD by other characters how great or likeable these characters are.
Messaging or not, the simple fact of the matter is that it became a shield for bad storytelling. Give us a compelling protagonist (Ripley in Aliens is a REALLY good example of one from a while back) and we will like them. It isn't a dislike of strong female characters, it's the presentation of "here's this character, like them" instead of "here's this character, here's how they grow into someone likeable".
Look at the first three Avengers (not including Hulk) and how they are introduced:
2 (Tony Stark and Thor) start off capable but arrogant, brash, hotheaded... and learn something throughout the course of their first movie to become likeable and relatable.
The other one, Captain America, starts out likeable but not capable (versus the other two) and therefor we root for him to become capable. He's still not winning every fight he's in, but he had the inverse arc of the other two.
Being introduced to a character with no flaws and no growth only works in movies with thin plots (like old school action movies where the plot is just a reason to get on with the action) or things like comedies and horror movies. If you want a compelling story to go along with your action, then you have to give us compelling characters. TELLING us the character is compelling doesn't magically make them so.
Posted on 8/5/24 at 4:48 pm to skrayper
quote:
skrayper
You pretty much nailed it.
Posted on 8/5/24 at 4:58 pm to RollTide1987
I have my doubts. Hollywood is far left, not sure it knows how to separate at this point.
Posted on 8/5/24 at 6:12 pm to RollTide1987
If this is happening, then it’s because of pressure from Bob Iger, not out of any any disagreement that Feige has with the activists. He’s very much in agreement with them.
Picking Robert Downey Jr as Dr Doom was very telling to me. It’s a signal that Marvel realizes that their later phases lack star power, and they need to get some back, stat.
Picking Robert Downey Jr as Dr Doom was very telling to me. It’s a signal that Marvel realizes that their later phases lack star power, and they need to get some back, stat.
Posted on 8/5/24 at 6:51 pm to NIH
quote:This bullshite political thread resurfaces more often than that. It’s the floater that refuses to flush.
This story comes out about ever 6 months whether it’s Star Wars or marvel
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News