Captain Marvel: The MCU's First Failure?

[Admiral X]

"Them" wuold be RT, as they made the claim.

[MixedDrops]

Okay thanks for the clarification, but you also claimed that they're doing it to "outrage market" a film that's under a completely different media conglomerate. Explain?

[Admiral X]

You'll notice there was a paragraph break there, and that I don't specify anyone in particular there.

[MissKittyFantastico]

I don't meme much so forgive me if I'm a bit rusty, but-

[MixedDrops]

You'll notice there was a paragraph break there, and that I don't specify anyone in particular there.

Okay, so that brings us back to the first question...who is "them"? And if you were not referring to this whole brouhaha with RT changing their system, then what is going that qualifies as this "outrage marketing"?

[Makeshift Python]

As it is, I'm taking this as yet another example of outrage marketing, and I have a feeling it might backfire on them the way it did with the Ghostbusters reboot.

The Ghostbusters reboot didn't fail because of "outrage marketing", it failed because it sucked. Even if it had brought back the original cast it still would have been a terrible film, no amount of nostalgia would save it. I actually looked forward to that film because it had the cast and crew that made one of the funniest films of the decade with BRIDESMAIDS.

[MrL1992]

Just want to express huge respect to Zach Levi for calling out these trolls. Many were trying to latch onto Shazam to spite 'Captain Marvel' and he really wasn't comfortable with that. Reactionary people are all to happy to turn on you at the drop of a hat, which in his case they have but better to get it over with rather than risk any association with some of worst people on the Internet.

So yeah, one Captain Marvel defending another. Quite the time.

[Karha of Honor]

Just want to express huge respect to Zach Levi for calling out these trolls. Many were trying to latch onto Shazam to spite 'Captain Marvel' and he really wasn't comfortable with that. Reactionary people are all to happy to turn on you at the drop of a hat, which in his case they have but better to get it over with rather than risk any association with some of worst people on the Internet.

So yeah, one Captain Marvel defending another. Quite the time.

Because the real bleeding edge of progressives like by the Klingon Code of Honor...

[clearspira]

Okay so I haven't been following this online controversy closely because why the frell would I, but what tweets are we talking about? Because I just had a quick google, and what I read seemed to suggest what kicked it off was Larsen pushing for more diversity in the press pools at promos for the film. Is that what these folks are upset about?

She phrased it not as ''needs more diversity'' she phrased it as ''we need to ban white men''. That may not be what she meant, but in this politically charged age, that was very naive or belligerent phrasing.

To a much lesser extent, she also came and and said that she wants people to donate tickets for ''underprivileged'' girls to go and see the film. Which 1) Annoyed people because, y'know, there are ''underprivileged'' boys that can't see the film either. 2) She's rich enough to buy the tickets herself. 3) That money is literally going back into her and Disney's pockets. Your charity money is paying her wages and 4) if you are ''underprivileged'' maybe you would want food or education instead of a ticket to a film that is only special because there is a woman in it. Again, blown out of proportion perhaps, but millions are now sick of this kind of fake pandering feminism.

Small things, but it's enough in this day.

[Makeshift Python]

She phrased it not as ''needs more diversity'' she phrased it as ''we need to ban white men''.

Please provide a source for such a quote because the only thing google is showing me is insecure white men feeling attacked over Larson wanting more diversity in press junkets. Diversity includes white men, it doesn't ban them.