Jump to content

MCU: The Wong Dynasty


SpaceChampion
 Share

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Seriously? *head in hands*
 

Which other  Marvel movies had race as the main component of their marketing? 

This implies that if you're marketing white men then it isn't the main component somehow. 

If you like we can skip past all the random amounts of dickering you'll do to prove that captain America wasn't about just white men or iron man wasn't about white men because it had a woman or a black person in a starring role, and I can point out that black panther had white people and captain Marvel had men so clearly it isn't about a totally woman or black cast. And you can then say how black panther pondered by being about that specific ethnicity and I can point out how that's exactly what cap America does, it's just that you don't recognize white male as an ethnicity, it's just the default.

Can we get to the part where you just accidentally admit bigotry? That's usually the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is pretty much the answer I expected. :rolleyes:
 
It isn't really dealing with the question at hand though. My point is that Marvel explicitly used race and racial tension to make money, money that went directly into the hands of a very rich white guys (if that is the sort of thing that annoys you). 

This wasn't just a case of marketing towards black people, it promoting the Black Panther movie as some sort of social justice event, proclaiming that it's existence is a way for black people to fight racism, that it isn't just a movie, it's a cultural event. It's clever marketing no doubt. Marvel knew this and were aware of the strategy and it's how successful the movie would probably be well before it's release.

Think about some of the tactics Marvel used to promote Black Panther.

  • They released it during Black History Month for starters, not a coincidence, during BLMs rise and a Trump presidency.
  • During the initial trailer for Black Panther they used 'The revolution will not be televised' as the background music, again using the language and artefacts of revolution to promote their cashgrab.
  • A number of 'grassroots' campaigns were set up to allow poor black kids to go watch the movie, depicting it as some sort of moral crusade to see this thing, aligning the watching of the movie as some sort of force for racial justice.
  • Pushing any number of articles and stories about how this is the first marvel movie with a black superhero.. despite the much superior Blade coming out many years earlier. 


This is Marvel/Disney explicitly positioning their movie as a movie designed to fight for racial justice. There is a clear difference between how they marketed this movie and other movies. I'm not sure why someone like Mormont would want to pretend that never happened? 

It realised the success of that strategy and carried it on with Captain Marvel, using gender as it's crowbar. It's been doing it ever since, except these days it's using race and gender as a shield to protect itself from negative criticism. 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the trailer's pretty good, though the CG does look concerningly ropey considering it's due in like six weeks, but there is definitely a vibe of them trying to market a Black Panther movie without using the actual new Black Panther. Presumably that's because they're worried she's an antivaxxer, but it's a bit weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

That is pretty much the answer I expected. :rolleyes:
 
It isn't really dealing with the question at hand though. My point is that Marvel explicitly used race and racial tension to make money, money that went directly into the hands of a very rich white guys (if that is the sort of thing that annoys you). 

This wasn't just a case of marketing towards black people, it promoting the Black Panther movie as some sort of social justice event, proclaiming that it's existence is a way for black people to fight racism, that it isn't just a movie, it's a cultural event. It's clever marketing no doubt. Marvel knew this and were aware of the strategy and it's how successful the movie would probably be well before it's release.

Think about some of the tactics Marvel used to promote Black Panther.

  • They released it during Black History Month for starters, not a coincidence, during BLMs rise and a Trump presidency.
  • During the initial trailer for Black Panther they used 'The revolution will not be televised' as the background music, again using the language and artefacts of revolution to promote their cashgrab.
  • A number of 'grassroots' campaigns were set up to allow poor black kids to go watch the movie, depicting it as some sort of moral crusade to see this thing, aligning the watching of the movie as some sort of force for racial justice.
  • Pushing any number of articles and stories about how this is the first marvel movie with a black superhero.. despite the much superior Blade coming out many years earlier. 


This is Marvel/Disney explicitly positioning their movie as a movie designed to fight for racial justice. There is a clear difference between how they marketed this movie and other movies. I'm not sure why someone like Mormont would want to pretend that never happened? 

It realised the success of that strategy and carried it on with Captain Marvel, using gender as it's crowbar. It's been doing it ever since, except these days it's using race and gender as a shield to protect itself from negative criticism. 
 

It's corporate manipulation to maximize profit. I honestly believe this crap started with Rocky 4, where the entire movie was advertised and focused on Rocky defeating Communism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mormont said:

As ever, marketing to white male audiences is fine, marketing to other audiences is cynical pandering.

I don't recall the marketing to either Captain America or Iron Man or Thor, ever focusing on the fact that any of them are white, however it has been a while. Heck I don't recall the advertising for Blade in the 90's ever really focusing on the fact that he was black; they just focused on advertising a good film.

Edited by sifth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, sifth said:

I don't recall the marketing to either Captain America or Iron Man or Thor, ever focusing on the fact that any of them are white, however it has been a while. Heck I don't recall the advertising for Blade in the 90's ever really focusing on the fact that he was black; they just focused on advertising a good film.

Can we just get to the part where you admit your bigotry? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

It realised the success of that strategy and carried it on with Captain Marvel, using gender as it's crowbar. It's been doing it ever since, except these days it's using race and gender as a shield to protect itself from negative criticism. 
 

Yeah well, there's serious moneys at play. They'd be negligent not to. This isn't "show friends".

I'm not going to speculate on just how cynical the marketing campaigns were. but in the case of Captain Marvel, I think you might have a point. There was some talk that some reviewers were soft peddling their reviews of that film. Although, to the extent that's true, it could be more about not wanting to jeopardize access than not attacking an openly feminist film. It's largely hearsay so take it for what it's worth.

What isn't hearsay is Lindsey Ellis, who had a substantial social media presence before she quit, coming out as saying she didn't like the film months after it came out. Her account is now defunct so I can't find the tweet, but I remember it said something about not mentioning it at the time because she didn't want to be lumped in with misogynists who were attacking the film for less honorable reasons. And don't underestimate the profit motive on that side of things as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Deadlines? What Deadlines? said:

Yeah well, there's serious moneys at play. They'd be negligent not to. This isn't "show friends".

I'm not going to speculate on just how cynical the marketing campaigns were. but in the case of Captain Marvel, I think you might have a point. There was some talk that some reviewers were soft peddling their reviews of that film. Although, to the extent that's true, it could be more about not wanting to jeopardize access than not attacking an openly feminist film. It's largely hearsay so take it for what it's worth.

What isn't hearsay is Lindsey Ellis, who had a substantial social media presence before she quit, coming out as saying she didn't like the film months after it came out. Her account is now defunct so I can't find the tweet, but I remember it said something about not mentioning it at the time because she didn't want to be lumped in with misogynists who were attacking the film for less honorable reasons. And don't underestimate the profit motive on that side of things as well. 

I'm sure there are a lot of reviewers that will want to be on 'the right side of the argument' and give positive reviews to socially relevant movies and shows, just as there are the sort of 'anti woke' reviewers who will be at pains to say anything nice about it.

On top of that there is the whole 'Disney shill' element where reviewers need to chummy up to Disney to get access to viewings and toys and products. Thats a problem for many industries, but it is really apparent with huge blockbuster products that Disney puts out. I think every has accepted that this is just part of the process now, and one of the bigger reasons why you end up with big disparities between reviewer and audience scores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I'm sure there are a lot of reviewers that will want to be on 'the right side of the argument' and give positive reviews to socially relevant movies and shows, just as there are the sort of 'anti woke' reviewers who will be at pains to say anything nice about it.

On top of that there is the whole 'Disney shill' element where reviewers need to chummy up to Disney to get access to viewings and toys and products. Thats a problem for many industries, but it is really apparent with huge blockbuster products that Disney puts out. I think every has accepted that this is just part of the process now, and one of the bigger reasons why you end up with big disparities between reviewer and audience scores.

You can always tell if a review has been influenced by Disney or any company really, if their review for the product comes out, before the general public has access to it. The fact that the reviewer got early access to the product means, they are obviously on good terms with the company what owns the product and wants future early access to up coming products.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I'm sure there are a lot of reviewers that will want to be on 'the right side of the argument' and give positive reviews to socially relevant movies and shows, just as there are the sort of 'anti woke' reviewers who will be at pains to say anything nice about it.

On top of that there is the whole 'Disney shill' element where reviewers need to chummy up to Disney to get access to viewings and toys and products. Thats a problem for many industries, but it is really apparent with huge blockbuster products that Disney puts out. I think every has accepted that this is just part of the process now, and one of the bigger reasons why you end up with big disparities between reviewer and audience scores.

I think the "shill" accusation gets thrown around way too casually. That said, I have more respect for some of these people if they were actually shilling instead of just giving it away like government cheese. 

Personally I think the "RT approved critic" thing is losing influence. It's certainly carries less weight than it did a few years ago. The WW84 debacle is a good example why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to carry on the discussion at any length for various reasons, but let's be clear: 

Marketed to a white male audience =/= marketing explicitly including references to 'white' or 'male'. 

Let's also be clear that the entire role and purpose of Martin Freeman's character in the original BP movie is to give white male audiences an identification character to help them get into the film. You could cut the role entirely without affecting the plot in any significant way. So even with BP, Marvel was always thinking about how to get that audience on board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, sifth said:

I don't recall the marketing to either Captain America or Iron Man or Thor, ever focusing on the fact that any of them are white, however it has been a while. Heck I don't recall the advertising for Blade in the 90's ever really focusing on the fact that he was black; they just focused on advertising a good film.

And this would be precisely my point: Captain America is designed - since it was created! - to be an icon for certain things. There's kinda a hint in the name there. It's somewhat interesting to me that we don't think twice about the obvious branding and marketing of a guy named "Captain AMERICA". 

I do agree that Disney absolutely, 100% sells feeling good about diversity as a brand. They do this across the board, on all their properties, and do it very well. That said, that marketing push does not guarantee a good movie or a successful property and you absolutely have to have cross-demo success in order to make something work. Black Panther made a billion dollars mostly because white people went to see it, not because black people did. Same is true for Captain Marvel. Shang-Chi didn't make that kind of money despite having very similar marketing targeting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...