Jon Watts to direct MCU Fantastic Four film

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by IMJ

I don't think that the catchphrase "M-SHE-U" is entirely about "volume of product" as much as it is about rage-bait-messaging, replacing male characters, and cramming dramatic-feminism down people's throats in the content they did produce.

We had the Avengers: Endgame scene with the clown car of awkwardly grouped all-girl-superheroes running into the battle like they were Titans from Attack On Titan, which was forced and awful...

So the idea that Marvel Studios is sabotaging their male characters largely comes down to them making (what you feel) are bad movies with female protagonists? If anything that sounds more like they are sabotaging their female characters.

Beyond that I don't really get your arguments. The whole Jane Foster Thor saga was one of the best selling books Marvel Comics had during that era. Outselling the Thor run starring Odinson that immediately preceded it which at the time was hyped as a rare sales success for the character. It was a no brainer decision to adapt that story into film. Regardless of the quality of the final product the movie was a lot kinder to it's male protagonist than the comic version. Odinson is still the main character, he isn't replaced by Jane or rendered unworthy.

As for Wakanda Forever...you do realise Chadwick Boseman died. Unless you're suggesting that Disney secretly had him killed to promote Letitia Wright to the lead role I don't see how he was sabotaged. Also how many times has T'challa stood down or been deposed in the comics and Shuri takes over as Black Panther? It just makes sense to have her step into the lead role.

I don't know if you've read classic Ms Marvel comics but she was created to be a feminist superhero. If anything modern depictions of Carol Danvers (including the movie version) portray her as much less militant in her feminism. I don't understand who she was supposed to be sabotaging simply by starring in a movie. As something of an aside the movie made over a billion dollars and the comics actually got an uptick in sales after the movie so clearly some people liked it. Brie Larsen also still gets work in Hollywood outside of the MCU so she can't be that unpopular either.

We don't know how The Marvels is going to do but it's response from regular people has been mostly positive. Of course it's got the usual angry right wing youtubers up in arms about the movie and how this will be the one to finally kill off Marvel but I notice a few prominent ones are laying off the movie and saying things like "don't hate me but this one doesn't look so woke to me". I imagine they are hedging their bets after ranting for months about how woke the Super Mario Bros movie was and predicting it would flop only to have to hurriedly change tactics and portray it as anti-woke after the it broke records and couldn't spin it as a failure.

I also don't know if you read modern Eternal comics but like a lot of Marvel's god-like pantheon they are in a constant cycle of death and rebirth and with the Eternals they come back different each time. Makkari has been a woman for some time. Even if the character being gender swapped was purely a movie thing I don't see how that sabotaged any of the male characters. I don't recall her being portrayed as better than the male Eternals.

Similarly I don't see how that sequence were the female heroes team up sabotages the male heroes. I'll never get why this was such a big deal, the whole thing was less 20 seconds. You'd think it was them that defeated Thanos.

Originally Posted by Sabacooza

Truth.

Anybody that thinks Disney is doing good just isn't paying attention. Disney is so far in the red it's not even funny and they have no one to blame but themselves for their idiotic decision to wage war against the fans/customers.

Anyone who thinks Disney is in the red is not only not paying attention but living in bizarro world. The last time this came up I posted a bunch of links which showed that Disney's profits are up these past two years. I'd bust them out again if I felt people on this board weren't so far down the rabbit hole that they could accept simple facts.

It's incredibly stupid that idiots have been convinced that the CEOs of one of the biggest corporations in the world are not only secret communists and are also deliberately killing their company with woke products to accomplish...well no one can tell me what they think the end goal of this dastardly plan is.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Galactus

So the idea that Marvel Studios is sabotaging their male characters largely comes down to them making (what you feel) are bad movies with female protagonists?

No. The idea that Marvel is pushing an agenda at the expense of their male characters is factual happening and the fact that they are doing it so strongly that even the quality of movies are suffering is evidence enough.

Marvel has pushed the "M-She-U" to an extreme - so much that their output has a variety of examples that are so poorly done and so indicative of the blue-hair headspace that the output borders on parody rather than commentary. And almost every example I cited supports that.

The reason you always twist meaning or incorporate the "your opinion is...." defense is simply so you don't have to address the actual commentary head-on, otherwise you'd have to lie about it - i.e. "No, Ray Winston's character in Black Widow was not indicative of agenda and nowhere in the movie did I find him to be so irrelevant and cliche that he was more parody than foolish, liberal commentary." But you don't even do that.

[Andrew NDB]

Take Doctor Strange 2. It exists solely to introduce Captain Two Moms so they can set up her movie(s) or whatever they have planned there for her. There is no character arc for Doctor Strange in it whatsoever.

Look at Thor 4. There's barely anything for Thor himself in it, as it mostly exists to showcase the female Thor, and then give Thor a daughter at the end of it for an encore.

Ant-Man 3. It's mostly there to showcase Cassie stepping into the suit and learning the ropes.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Galactus

So the idea that Marvel Studios is sabotaging their male characters largely comes down to them making (what you feel) are bad movies with female protagonists? If anything that sounds more like they are sabotaging their female characters.

No. The idea that Marvel is pushing an agenda at the expense of their male characters is factual happening and the fact that they are doing it so strongly that even the quality of movies are suffering is evidence enough.

Marvel has pushed the "M-She-U" to an extreme - so much that their output has a variety of examples that are so poorly done and so indicative of the blue-hair headspace that the output borders on parody rather than commentary. And almost every example I cited supports that.

The reason you always twist meaning or incorporate the "your opinion is...." defense is simply so you don't have to address the actual commentary head-on, otherwise you'd have to lie about it - i.e. "No, Ray Winston's character in Black Widow was not indicative of agenda and nowhere in the movie did I find him to be so irrelevant and cliche that he was more parody than foolish, liberal commentary." But you don't even do that.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Take Doctor Strange 2. It exists solely to introduce Captain Two Moms so they can set up her movie(s) or whatever they have planned there for her. There is no character arc for Doctor Strange in it whatsoever.

The whole movie was about how Strange was unhappy with his solitary life which of course sets him up him getting romantically involved with Clea (Charlize Theron's character from the post credit scene and main love interest from the comics).

Another big character arc is Strange learning to value life as more than just a math exercise. Infinity War, No Way Home and all the various other Strange's from Multiverse of Madness are willing to sacrifice people for what he sees as the greater good. The movie climaxes with Strange trusting America can handle herself were previously he would have killed her than run the risk Wanda stealing her power.

Obviously it sets up a Young Avengers tv series or movie down the line but no one had a problem with Civil War setting up MCU Spider-man and this movie integrated America in the story better than the Russos were able to with Peter Parker.

Look at Thor 4. There's barely anything for Thor himself in it, as it mostly exists to showcase the female Thor, and then give Thor a daughter at the end of it for an encore.

Love & Thunder is a strange one because it's very much a send off for Thor (which was apparently Waititi's intention) in which case giving him a daughter makes sense but then sets up a follow up were he'll fight Hercules.

The whole movie is about his character arc though. Similar to Strange the whole point of Thor 4 was that he was alone. All of his closest family and friends were dead and not having a purpose. Hence why it ends it ends with him getting a new family to care for. I assume wherever Thor shows up to fight Hercules he'll leave Love with her Uncle Korg. Sadly that may not happen with Hemsworth's health issues.

Ant-Man 3. It's mostly there to showcase Cassie stepping into the suit and learning the ropes.

That was definitely a theme of the movie but is that a bad thing? The main character arc of his previous movies was maintaining a relationship with his daughter so surely it's important to see what their relationship with her now she's suddenly a teenager. It's one of the few things carried over from the previous Ant-Man since it seems more intent on pushing Kang as the next big bad. That was what the movie was mostly about.

Originally Posted by IMJ

No. The idea that Marvel is pushing an agenda at the expense of their male characters is factual happening and the fact that they are doing it so strongly that even the quality of movies are suffering is evidence enough.

Marvel has pushed the "M-She-U" to an extreme - so much that their output has a variety of examples that are so poorly done and so indicative of the blue-hair headspace that the output borders on parody rather than commentary. And almost every example I cited supports that.

The reason you always twist meaning or incorporate the "your opinion is...." defense is simply so you don't have to address the actual commentary head-on, otherwise you'd have to lie about it - i.e. "No, Ray Winston's character in Black Widow was not indicative of agenda and nowhere in the movie did I find him to be so irrelevant and cliche that he was more parody than foolish, liberal commentary." But you don't even do that.

Whether a piece of art is good or bad is a matter of opinion. Clearly normies liked things like Captain Marvel and Black Panther despite politically motivated grifters promoting the idea that everyone hated them. Most people loved Endgame and didn't spend their time obsessing over a small segment were a few women were on camera at the same time.

But let's say you're right about Marvel/Disney's agenda again I ask why would a mega corporation be deliberately tanking their most valuable IPs? Surely someone can give me answer that doesn't involve the Jews or the lizard people.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Galactus

The whole movie was about how Strange was unhappy with his solitary life which of course sets him up him getting romantically involved with Clea (Charlize Theron's character from the post credit scene and main love interest from the comics).

An after-credits setup for something that may or may not happen in a future film isn't a character arc. It isn't anything at all.

Love & Thunder is a strange one because it's very much a send off for Thor (which was apparently Waititi's intention) in which case giving him a daughter makes sense but then sets up a follow up were he'll fight Hercules.

You got "sendoff for Thor" from the movie? I got "random Taika Waitiki sh** going on and Thor will probably train his daughter in the next movie."

But let's say you're right about Marvel/Disney's agenda again I ask why would a mega corporation be deliberately tanking their most valuable IPs? Surely someone can give me answer that doesn't involve the Jews or the lizard people.

Deliberately tanking? It's not really that black and white. Certainly the hope is that one day, these kinds of movies will be super successful because that will be what people will want. Taking a few punches along the way is a small price to pay in changing audience's worldview in and through entertainment, in their eyes. Which is a much broader agenda. Shifting away from masculine stoic men, destroying all norms so that everything is morally equivalent, portraying capitalism as "oh capitalism? of course that's bad/evil" so that gets plugged into brains early on, and so on and so on as we march toward Liberal Utopia. One movie and Disney+ series at a time.

You know, you see something once, it's obvious and out of place. You see it again, it's a little less noticeable. Three or four times, you're used to it now. By the twentieth time, it becomes to be a bit odd if it isn't there.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Galactus

But let's say you're right about Marvel/Disney's agenda again I ask why would a mega corporation be deliberately tanking their most valuable IPs? Surely someone can give me answer that doesn't involve the Jews or the lizard people.

I don't think it's 'deliberately taking their IPs' but moreso they expected everyone to love it and either being too oblivious or too stubborn to care if anyone actually did and continuing to do it anyway.

Obviously a lot of people didn't like the changes post End Game.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

An after-credits setup for something that may or may not happen in a future film isn't a character arc. It isn't anything at all.

You don't think there is going to be a Doctor Strange 3? You don't think they have got Charlize Theron already contractually locked in place for it?

The whole movie is about letting go of his past love that he never got over. The guy repairs his watch at the end as a visual clue that he's ready to move on. It's not exactly subtle.

You may not find Strange's character arcs in the movie particularly interesting or compelling but they existed, they were the main themes of the movie. It wasn't just a vehicle another Young Avenger.

You got "sendoff for Thor" from the movie? I got "random Taika Waitiki sh** going on and Thor will probably train his daughter in the next movie."

Yeah I got "sendoff for Thor" from the movie then Waititi confirmed it too. We know the after credit scene setting more Thor was tacked on by Marvel Studios. Like I said with Hemsworth's health issues he may not want to do more Marvel movies and even if he's contractually obligated I'm sure they realise it would look bad to force a sick man to work against his will. However if he does return in say Avengers 5 I doubt it will feature his daughter in any meaningful capacity.

Almost all of the new young faces that have popped up in recent Marvel Projects are all members of the Young Avengers (Marvel's 2000s attempt at a Teen Titans). Clearly there is some TV series or movie in the works were they all team up. The difference is that Thor's daughter is an original character. Not that the MCU is averse to original characters playing a prominent role in their movies (Hope Van Dyne) but I doubt that's their intention. The roster already looks pretty full despite some key members yet to debut.

Deliberately tanking? It's not really that black and white. Certainly the hope is that one day, these kinds of movies will be super successful because that will be what people will want. Taking a few punches along the way is a small price to pay in changing audience's worldview in and through entertainment, in their eyes. Which is a much broader agenda. Shifting away from masculine stoic men, destroying all norms so that everything is morally equivalent, portraying capitalism as "oh capitalism? of course that's bad/evil" so that gets plugged into brains early on, and so on and so on as we march toward Liberal Utopia. One movie and Disney+ series at a time.

You know, you see something once, it's obvious and out of place. You see it again, it's a little less noticeable. Three or four times, you're used to it now. By the twentieth time, it becomes to be a bit odd if it isn't there.

There is some semblance of truth in that. I've used this example before but when Disney made The Princess and the Frog they knew it would likely not be a financial hit but saw the value in having at least one black Disney Princess. Over a decade later Tiana regularly ranks as their best selling character in dolls.

Disney should know the value of things that aren't immediately successful. Several of the movies in what is considered to be their first golden age were actually commercial failures on release. They are only considered classic generations down the line and the absolute fortune they make on merchandise and home releases and theme park rides based on these movies more than justified their existence. Heck you could argue it's worked with one of their MCU films; Eternals wasn't really successful but ended up the most streamed Disney+ movie of 2022.

Still I'm not entirely sure this is what is happening here. Clearly they hope audiences warm to these next gen characters so when they do get around to making a Young Avengers thing they have an inbuilt audience but they are not taking a financial hit by including them in projects with the existing characters. Featuring America Chavez didn't stop Doctor Strange earning nearly a billion and the lowest rated Disney+ series (Hawkeye) which was upfront about being about Clint and his young female protege still outperformed much more lauded shows like Peacemaker.

The reason why Disney and indeed any corporation does woke in their creative content is because there is vast amounts of market research that tells them that this works to hook in demographics which are financially important. Of course they occasionally get it wrong like the all female Ghost Busters but contrary to the narrative of right wing youtubers usually they work out financially well. They are not trying to wipe out straight white males from popular culture, they are just trying to make money.

Were you really lose me is the idea that Disney are trying to portray capitalism as bad. They are a f**cking MEGA CORPORATION. One of the biggest in the world. Do you really think one of the richest organisations in history wants to end the system which allows them for intents and purposes to operate their own nation state within a state? Seriously. They are big doners to Republican Party for goodness sakes. There is a reason that a lot of Ron Desantis' financial backers are telling him "dude just drop the anti-Disney crap or we'll have to leave you for the orage idiot again".

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Galactus

But let's say you're right about Marvel/Disney's agenda again I ask why would a mega corporation be deliberately tanking their most valuable IPs? Surely someone can give me answer that doesn't involve the Jews or the lizard people.

Because they are a "creative writing" company. A non-profession that liberals flock to in search of deploying their own phony intellectualism. And those kinds of people don't see the world straight to begin with and they simply dig-in on their nonsense in a homogenized group. That's why. This isn't speculation. It's common sense. People homogenize. Look at the "California way" and that state is falling apart at the seams.

Do you think that if these people weren't at Disney flexing their sense of self-importance that they would be somewhere else being engineers, designing meaningful things? Jesus, man. Seriously you needed that explanation?!?!? I thought that was a common sense societal observation. Why do you think they call them "bleeding heart liberals"? It's because it's all maladaptive, melodramatic, self-serving, virtue-signaling narcissism. OMG. Holy $#!(, seriously you didn't know that?!?!

They aren't deliberately tanking their own I.P.s! LMAO!
Groupthink amongst a group of basket cases like Kathleen Kennedy becomes a corporate movement.
Groupthink in a society who has mobilized it's countryside peasants to riots over phony issues means a society tearing itself apart.

There are more peasants than kings, holy $#!( it's that simple. A political environment results in leaders who manipulate and mobilize their peasants into riots. And then companies with cowardly leaders onboard with the "movement narrative" out of fear as well as pursuit of profit. Presumably because they either understand the manipulation themselves, or because they also lack the common sense to know that the whole thing was disingenuous bull$#!( to begin with, again because there are more f'n peasants than kings in the world. And ironically the new peasant-ass thing to do is call each other "kings" and "queens". Except that one group uses the term as allusion to illustrate a point, while the other group uses the term to jerk off.

You don't need a "lizard person conspiracy" to have a real agenda, omfg dude.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by IMJ

Because they are a "creative writing" company. A non-profession that liberals flock to in search of deploying their own phony intellectualism. And those kinds of people don't see the world straight to begin with and they simply dig-in on their nonsense in a homogenized group. That's why. This isn't speculation. It's common sense. People homogenize. Look at the "California way" and that state is falling apart at the seams.

...

Disney isn't some art house project making small scale indie movies. They are a multi billion dollar corporation that makes thousands of big budget movies and tv series that go on their own tv channels and streaming services. They operate multiple massive theme parks across the globe and have thousands of merchandising deals active at any given time.

Sure, liberals and progressives have always been drawn to the creative arts but the people at the top are ultra capitalists and conservatives, as I pointed out the company is a big doner to the Republican party and they control all of their output with an iron fist. The reason that most MCU movies keep a consistent feel is that they are created by the same committee. Sure, they have been persuaded to give some directors more leeway but ultimately they have the last say on everything.

It's nice that you don't think they are deliberately tanking their IPs but many of the right including a lot of people in this board have argued vehemently that they are (congratulations you're one of the less insane inmates at the asylum) so then it begs a follow up question; if their approach is failing so much why aren't the CEOs and executives on the board all stepping in to stop it? Why are they doubling down and not course correcting?

It's because their approach is not failing. And as the latest right wing youtuber yells that the latest woke MCU movie is tanking and the entire thing is collapsing these CEOs are swimming in money laughing their asses off like Scrooge Mcduck.

[IMJ]

sigh omfg.

Man, always be an armchair critic bro. Never do this kind of conversing anywhere it counts, please I implore you.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by IMJ

sigh omfg.

Man, always be an armchair critic bro. Never do this kind of conversing anywhere it counts, please I implore you.

n
I do. I don't spend all my time conversing with the people of opposite land, y'know.

Where CEOs of the biggest corporations on Earth are anti-capitalist.

Where organisations that donate millions to the Republican party are ultra woke left wingers.

Where these same organisations disproportionately run by white men are bankrupting themselves trying to marginalise the white men.

Quite a place you've constructed for yourself this Opposite Land but I can't live there full time like y'all do.

[IMJ]

You are having your own conversation. Not the conversation. And you've dug in on it so badly that you've lost sight of whatever point you had - if you ever even had one other than digging in to fight whatever "evil" and "misguidedness" you perceive yourself to be fighting.

It's very simple. No matter how often you come back to it or try to discredit it by relying on shaming tactics that include "conspiracy flinger!" and "lizard men!", remains the simple point that there is an agenda by TV and film creators, that this agenda has been overwhelmingly on-the-nose from Disney content, and that it is a self-serving market manipulation bent on onboarding with what these people perceive as the social movement of the moment.

How you could possibly argue against that fact simply for your own lost headspace is inconceivable. There is now enough evidence in this thread simply between your gaslighting and flailing around and my regular return-to-the-point that it's clear to anyone who wants to wade through it.

[Autbot_Benz]

FANTASTIC FOUR
Previously dated on 2/14/25 moves to 5/2/25

https://www.marvel.com/articles/movi...lease-schedule

[Autbot_Benz]

Looks like Mando himself Pedro Pascal is Reed Richards if Slashfilm is correct

The news was initially reported by Daniel RPK, but according to sources close to the project who spoke with /Film, Pascal has officially signed on the dotted line. Although Daniel RPK's report says Pascal is in talks, /Film's source says the deal is done and should be announced soon. We have reached out to Disney for comment.*

We still don't know who will be playing the rest

Read More: https://www.slashfilm.com/1000765/ma...reed-richards/

Deadline is saying he is in talks too which is basically a conformation https://deadline.com/2023/11/pedro-p...ur-1235599560/

[CyberCubed]

Between that and playing Joel in The Last of Us it seems he's everywhere these days. I also forgot he was in Wonder Woman 2.

[Andrew NDB]

He's a little old for Reed Richards.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

He's a little old for Reed Richards.

I like Pedro Pascal but this just looks like bad casting for a variety of reasons.

[ProphetofGanja]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

He's a little old for Reed Richards.

Reed Richards, the guy who famously has graying temples?

[Autbot_Benz]

SAG-AFTRA confirms Pascal is going to be Reed Richards



https://twitter.com/DiscussingFilm/s...47279445795158