zslane

I think it makes more sense to say that when it comes to superheroes in the comics, being 100% straight is the assumed default unless clearly and unequivocally shown otherwise. This is, after all, the genre and medium that didn't put any focus on sexual identity for its first couple of decades (and why would it? it's not relevant), and then was made even more squeaky clean by the imposition of the comics code in the 1950s. It is only relatively recently that issues of sexual identity have been directly addressed in mainstream superhero comics. And it wasn't something that became an editorial agenda until a few years ago. So I'd argue that the burden of proof falls on showing an unshakably non-straight character with zero hetero inclinations, since 100% straight has been the assumed default for over eighty years.

Which is probably, like, 95+% of them, right?

With Chapek in charge, there is a very good chance Carano will be hired back as well.

While it may not be "unrealistic" for a teenage character like Tim Drake to explore/discover his sexuality on a deeper, more authentic level, it feels jarring to readers because of the decades-long understand they've had of him. To readers, he's been straight for 32 years regardless of how old he is supposed to be in continuity. In fact, in-continuity age strikes me as a weak metric for justifying things like this because superhero character virtually never age. And just like their age, their core identity is not meant to change drastically over time either. That's why it feels sudden and contrived that Tim Drake is "revealed" as bi-sexual. It is so clearly an attempt to appear progressive, pandering to the identity politics of the moment, while sacrificing the decades-long relationship readers have had with the character in the process.

There's obviously nothing wrong with having an opinion that doesn't toe the company line (in this case, Disney's). However, there are consequences to one's actions, and if you are a highly public figure and your highly public actions conflict with the optics your employer depends on for the integrity of its brand, then you must be prepared to accept the consequences. That is simply how the adult world works. So if you are an actor working for Disney, then by all means have whatever political opinions you want, just don't express them on social media unless you are content to sabotage your relationship with Disney in doing so. Gina Carano only has herself to blame; I just hope she feels that speaking her mind--as was her right to do--was worth it in this instance.

From a business perspective, it might have to. "Go woke, go broke," isn't just a catchy, politically-incorrect slogan. It appears to reflect broader marketplace realities. If comic book companies want to stay in business, they may have to abandon the progressive notion that superhero storytelling doesn't have to be limited to what sells, which, it would appear is action/adventure, not clumsy diversity plays and diversions into the narrative margins (e.g., romance).

This.

I need romance in my superhero action/adventure stories like I need onions in my lemonade. I don't care that Iceman is gay, or that Tim Drake is bi-sexual, any more than I care that Batman is straight. It just isn't relevant to the kind of stories I want/expect from the genre. Green Arrow could have a foot fetish and Wonder Woman could be into light bondage, but I don't care. Some folks will say romance and sexuality adds verisimilitude to the characters, the stories, and the genre as a whole, but I disagree. Again, onions and lemonade.

That's an interesting theory, and there may some truth to it. The future of streaming revenue participation is also (potentially) hanging in the balance. Either way, this has nothing whatever to do with poor ScarJo and how Disney is screwing her over financially, or how Disney is trying to squash forward progress for female representation in (action) movies. And if Midnight's Edge is correct, we won't see the end of the misinformation campaign against Disney/Chapek for some time.

Disney also has a long history of paying visual fx studios only half of what they were contractually obligated to pay them for services rendered and making them sue for the other half. Disney is in many ways the Evil Empire. However, visual fx artists are not unionized. They are much easier to screw over. Actors, (screen)writers, directors, and producers have unions to protect their interests, at least in theory. Every studio in business works hard to exploit every possible loophole in their contracts with the unions, and the unions work hard to enforce--to an absurd degree sometimes, just watch the nonsense that goes on during live action shoots--the terms of those contracts. It is an ugly battle waged on both sides, and if actors aren't "getting their due" then it is either their agents, legal teams, or union reps who failed to negotiate the right deal; the studio is under no legal or ethical obligation to interpret the terms of a contract so as to favor the talent over the studio. In fact, I'm quite certain that there are millions of Disney shareholders who would hold Disney exec's feet to the fire if they ever did so.

Since "Drake" is his middle name, he is probably safe.

I'd be curious to hear some concrete examples. They would be helpful in determining if this pattern is just a vague impression, or if it has specific relevance to SJ's case. The pandemic created an unprecedented crisis in the entertainment industry, and caused each studio to have to tackle the problem in some way. ScarJo is upset that Disney's solution isn't what she would have done if she was in charge. She wanted the movie to keep getting pushed until theaters were back up to 100% capacity and she could rake in whatever "full amount" she would have been due had there not been a pandemic. It will be up to a judge to decide if the pandemic constitutes sufficient extenuating circumstances to justify Disney's decision, or if Disney engaged in a bad-faith breach of contract. Either way, I would not characterize what Disney is doing here as "ripping off" SJ.

It's what you do when a former business partner accuses you of breach of contract and sues you for countless millions of dollars. You don't continue to merrily skip to my lou with them. You sever business ties and go into legal self-defense mode.

Do we know if Bruce Timm even wants the gig? I wouldn't if I were him...

I never cared for Keaton as Batman all that much. It takes more than a gruff voice and the occasional bout of smoldering intensity to be a believable Batman. As for James Gunn, well, I honestly believe he would fare no better than anyone else over at WB in trying to resurrect the DCEU. He's no Feige (but, then, nobody is) and he still has to deal with WB execs.

And ironically, Disney may be secretly hoping that Shang Chi underperforms next month so that it can serve as evidence that a Theater-Only MCU release does not yield more revenue than a Day-and-Date Theater+PVOD MCU release.

The fatal flaw of DiVX was that the studios maintained complete control over the consumer's ability to watch the disc(s) they bought. It was going to be the first home video format in which physically owning the media (a disc) did not guarantee you the ability to watch it whenever you wanted to. Moreover, DiVX threatened to split the marketplace the way VHS and Betamax did, and all the studios and hardware manufacturers who had invested in DVD's development couldn't afford another format war, as they shrewdly realized that consumers would be paralyzed with indecision as to which format to invest in, and so neither would catch on before withering on the proverbial vine. DiVX was a craven attempt by entertainment lawyers to deliver ultimate control of content to their clients and the marketplace rallied against it. I proudly displayed the "No DiVX" logo on my website until DiVX officially died.

A more pernicious problem, in my view, is the rise of cancel culture. That's not "the Man" in action, that's "the people" taking to the streets of the Internet looking for people to digitally lynch for daring to have a different opinion. For example, Grace Randolph recently explained that the reason she didn't give The Suicide Squad an RT rating at all was because she didn't want to deal with the vicious pounding she would take for refusing to board the pro-Gunn support train by blindly praising what she regards as a pretty flawed movie. I was a bit shocked that she was allowing cancel culture to silence her, as I've never heard her express such concern before. Sadly, I think this is only going to get worse, especially for people who make a living on social media.

IMO, Black Widow was never destined to be a huge earner for Marvel even without a pandemic throwing a wrench into the works. That's not because Marvel has lost its way, but because some Marvel movies are simply not going to click with a massive audience. And while Disney loves making gobs of money like all studios do, there is actually room in the Marvel line-up for characters that deliver only moderate box office performance, like Ant-Man and Black Widow. The Disney+ MCU streaming shows seem to be doing extremely well, which says to me that Marvel is still on top of their game. I think Shang Chi will only do moderately well, not unlike Black Widow, but mostly because I think there is a smaller audience for the martial arts corner of the superhero genre, not because Marvel has hit some proverbial iceberg. It's hard to say how well Eternals will do because when it is released we will still be under the thumb of a pandemic and we don't yet know how hard Disney is going to push it in terms of advertising. Disney will need to push pretty hard, I feel, because it is just like the Guardians of the Galaxy in that the Eternals is a team of heroes who are completely unknown to the public, and so the public needs to be shown/convinced why they should be excited to see a movie about them.

Unfortunately, making money from one isolated movie here and there is all that WB has to look forward to. They will remain completely overshadowed by Marvel and the MCU until the day comes when the MCU no longer enthralls the masses and they too are left just desperately trying to make a successful superhero movie once in a while. In other words, parity between Marvel and DC on the big screen will never come as a result of DC success, but only as a result of Marvel decline/failure. And that's just sad, especially if you are a big DC fan.

Well, there were more than half a dozen movie studios back in 1948, so consumers had choices then too. Yet the studio system that allowed studios to own their own theaters, in effect controlling exhibition in whatever slice of the theater market they owned, was broken up by government anti-trust action. Anti-trust was designed to eliminate vertical market control, and that's happening all over again. The cynic in me agrees that we live in an era in which Hollywood is seen as "too big to fail" (i.e., too important economically and culturally to be allowed to fail) and so it eludes anti-trust scrutiny. But if the battle between production and talent ever threatens to topple this precariously poised apple cart, some form of federally mandated regulation may step in to keep the industry from capsizing.

In a way, streaming services are like owning theaters again. Studios were divested of their theater ownerships back in 1948, and now they have complete control over the exhibition of their content again. I can't help but wonder if this will lead to another anti-trust case from the government at some point.

We should not be surprised that yet another WB superhero movie is a complete disaster. They should just stick to animation; seems to be the only thing they are (reasonably) consistently good at.

The studios always capitulate eventually. But it usually takes several contract renewal cycles before they do. Same fight, new name. Every new "ancillary market" format that comes along profits the studios first, and then the talent later (much later). If the studios refuse to negotiate on this, I wonder if we'll see the guilds creating their own studio (kind of like the old United Artists) just so they can create a competing streaming service of their own.

WB reluctantly rolled out the 2021 pay-out plan just to get through the pandemic. It prevented a ton of lawsuits (over lost box office revenue due to WB refusing to release any of their movies to theaters in 2021) that were looming on the horizon if they didn't. The fight over streaming subscription revenue sharing is a completely different battle, and WB will be defiantly standing its ground, in terms of negotiations, right along-side every other studio.