55 / 98
Aug 2022

Uh, I don't think the poor sales with the toys had to do with "wokeness" but more with an evolving interest in what kids are interest in. Kids were not interested in the films and don't hold as much nostalgia to them vs people my age and older. Disney did very little to try to appeal to kids and just expected that it would because Star Wars appealed to kids in the past. I feel like most of the people going out to watch the sequels were adults and only a small number of those adults would be interested in buying the toys for themselves.

Yet some how the Baby Yoda was the magic ticket. Kids love Baby Yoda and the merch for him sold like crazy. People don't care if the sequel movies were bad, they just want Baby Yoda slapped on everything.

And if it was just this in isolation, sure. But, it's NOT just this in isolation. It's happened often enough with enough different franchises to be a general trend. There's only so many columns of smoke you need to see before you call something a forest fire...

Yes, and I think this is the key point that perhaps bridges the gap between what I've been saying about my experiences, and what @RobertBMarks has been saying about his.

There's a difference between a corporation shoehorning a few weak token gestures of "diversity" into a work that isn't in any way focused around or created by marginalised people, and an independent creator from a marginalised group or dedicated to sensitively depicting under-represented people in genuinely important, pivotal story roles in their work. It's like how you'll see LGBTQIA+ people rolling their eyes at brands making their logos rainbow coloured during Pride Month, while homophobes also get angry about it; it might seem to point at "nobody wants marketing based on diversity", but it's more like "queer people want to be actually supported and protected, not profited off by companies that don't actually do anything but make a token gesture".

This is why Robert is seeing trends going one way so it seems like it isn't working out... while meanwhile at my day job in kids media, I'm developing diverse kids shows with diverse creators, because there's absolutely a ton of demand for diversity in children's books and shows right now.

There's a big audience for diverse content out there, but it has to feel authentic or you'll both piss off people in the "anti-diversity" crowd AND leave the pro-diversity crowd feeling uncomfortable with a weak token gesture or a depiction that's actually insulting or stereotypical, or even feeling like you're capitalising off marginalised people whose own work you should be signal boosting rather than telling their stories for them.

Lefeu in Live Action Beauty and the Beast is a prime example. Homophobes hate that a gay character got put into a movie which never had any canonically confirmed gay characters before, and gay people hated that of all the characters to make gay, they picked an incidental minor villain who's name means "the fool", and who exists to be a simp for the main antagonist, and then made the only hint about it one scene where he briefly dances with a man (ie. something you can erase for the countries that don't like it easily). This isn't a depiction anyone would have wanted, really. If they'd actually had some guts and wanted to go for more than just a token gesture, they should have made Cogsworth and Lumiere a couple or something. Rise of Skywalker is the same. A pair of ladies kiss in the background of one shot and Disney want us to give them a damn medal or some crap even though what everyone I know in the LGBTQ+ community actually wanted was Finn and Poe to be a couple, which would have actually taken some guts and been a big, brave gesture worthy of the praise they wanted.

Ultimately that's the deciding factor to me. People want content that reflects their experiences, or they want genuine support of marginalised people to a level where it can't just be quietly edited out. When somebody makes a fuss that their work is diverse but doesn't follow through, it's going to piss off both the people who hate even just the idea of diversity, AND the people who see a lacklustre attempt that in no way sates their hunger for representation but still an expectation of praise and money for it.

The reason why it is happening is what I just stated

I remember when Hasbro tried to rerelease the original My Little Ponys and most of the people buying them were adults who were nostalgic. Kids preferred the newer toys instead that were tied into the show. Similar when Mattel tries to re-release old Barbies, it's not for the kids. And similar with the new Bratz dolls, which I wonder if most of the people buying them are collectors and people who are nostalgic. And He-Man is similar. Adults who grew up with He-Man of course want new stuff but I feel like He-Man in it's original form would turn off most kids now a days.

And there is such a thing as franchises that just die. I think of stuff like Lamb Chop being reduced to dog toys or Howdy Doody, despite being extremely popular in its day, is super obscure now.

One of the sucky things about shoehorning, in Marvel's case, is scheduling conflicts which end up being inevitable.

Fun fact about America Chavez; she was supposed to be a main plot point for Spider-Man: No Way Home. She was never meant to be in Multiverse of Madness. Which makes sense because she felt like a huge after thought in the latter movie. In fact, I really don't think Raimi was aware of her existence when making the movie which was crazy to me.

So now I'm wondering if this is going to be a problem for other films in the future. It's like "Oh shoot, we have this character planned... we REALLY need to introduce them because contract reasons, but they can't show up..... uhhhhhhhhhhh PUT THEM IN THIS FILM QUICK!".

Btw little off-topic, who names their Mexican kid America? And I wanna know if she wore those clothes as a kid because I know for a fact she'll get bullied for that alone. Countries like Mexico and Brazil hate it when you call the United States "America", so having those colors on your back is a double whammy. I don't think the creators thought this character through...

What I remember hearing about Phase 4 was that it wasn't supposed to be this much of an unfocused mess. It was supposed to be as focused as Phases 1-3.

Apparently - and this may just be a rumour - Kevin Feige was stepping away from hands-on management due to the increasing workload, and his successor for planning and running Phase 4 and onwards was James Gunn...who then got fired right before the planning work was going to start. So, Feige still had too much work to be involved in planning a coherent Stage 4, and it fell to a bunch of lower producers who were...I guess you could say...not as well organized...

That's what I heard, anyway. It sounds like it makes a lot of sense when it comes to explaining the drastic changes between the three.

(Seriously, if this was 5 years ago, I would have been holding Marvel up as the perfect example of how to do all of this right. They caught lightning in a bottle and figured out how to market it properly for YEARS. And then...well, Phase 4 happened.)

I feel like Marvel will bounce back up. This type of stuff was bound to happen. Fegie plans on taking a retreat so he can plan the universe out further. He also has to deal with Sony which must be a pain. I don't think this is as crazy as people make it out to be. After all, his franchise became a success, he just needs to figure out how to control things on a bigger scale, which is a like a new challenge for him.

Take the Sony situation for example. Avi Arad thought Fegie was CRAZY for wanting to do something with the MCU. In fact they didn't buy the Marvel characters for a cheap price back then because, and I quote, "Nobody gives a sh** about them". Now that they see Spider-Man thriving, they want a piece of that pie and Fegie has to force himself to make sure their movies workout like Madame Webb.

I WILL say tho, we'll probably have some casualties along the way before Kevin figures things out. For example; Moon Knight not even being close to what he was in the comics (probably the most inaccurate character in the MCU), She-Hulk (the writers openly admitting they don't know how to write a lawyer drama BEFORE the show releases), the Eternals (Chloe Zhao... that's all), and whatever Taika touches.

I liked that my friend was like "Was he trying to get fired with Thor: Love and Thunder?!?".

I loved Black Widow tho. Black Widow gets too much hate. Natasha, Yelena, Red Guardian, and Iron Maiden were so cute as a family.

Honestly, the weirdest thing I saw with Marvel marketing was this thing with the toys about five years ago. I think it was Hasbro who had the license, and they were removing female characters from basically everything. It was BIZARRE. And the justification that I recall was something along the lines of "the kids who play with these are boys, and they won't want to see toys that they can't see themselves in"...which was utter nonsense, and made me think that the people involved either had never met a kid or been one themselves.

(And I'm old enough to remember the Star Wars toy boom that made Lucasfilm what it was back in the 1980s - there was a new toy for every single on-screen character after each costume change. Kenner and Lucasfilm made a fortune - this was a proven strategy.)

I thought they have a separate deal with girl toy companies like Barbie with their female characters? I mean, it doesn't make sense to do what you mentioned, but I do wonder if it's like an exclusive deal or something. Disney's weird like that.

I do remember something about that for Masters of the Universe and She Ra back in the late 80s...did that happen with Marvel as well?

I remember barbies being made for Captain Marvel and Black Widow when their films came out so.... most likely? But what about Marvel Legends? Because I saw figures for characters from those films as well (well Captain Marvel anyway).

We are now well past my point of knowing things...and I REALLY need to write this chapter. I'm going to go for a few hours...

I'm actually from a place where we get a lot of immigrants and I've met a couple of little girls named America while teaching! Can't remember if Mexican or Cuban cause it's not proper to ask those kind of questions but it seems to be a kind of "hope for the future" kind of thing where you name your kid after this place that you feel gives you more freedoms and hope for the future.

Tho I have zero idea what the idea behind naming her America was since she was from a utopia where only women exist so like I'm not even sure America would exist as a place or a word?!

But it's ok cause everything everywhere all at once was a much better mulitverse movie with real representation and an actual plot :slight_smile:

Mattel used to be Disney's main partner when it came to selling toys, especially the Disney Princesses. But due to a dispute, Disney ended up jumping ship and partnering with Hasbro instead. Around that time, Hasbro was having a lot of luck with their reboot of My Little Pony so it seemed like a good idea at the time. But recently, Disney has decided to go back to Mattel. And my guess is Mattel is going to try not to piss off Disney again.

But you may notice that the diversity is not the main selling point displayed in marketing.
They are not gonna conceal it, but series like Craig of the Creek or the Owl house's main marketing focus are the premise, worldbuilding and character dinamics, not the cast's skin color or sexual orientation.

Also, there are cases where the the diversity is promoted is done in a preachy and patronizing way, which alienates audiences that otherwise would be interested. Obviously not everyone does that, but cases like this exist. The case of High Guardian Spice is the perfect example of social media suicide.

Uh, maybe you are misremembering things but I definitely have heard people bring up the diversity of the show when promoting Craig of the Creek. Heck, here is an article from 2018 where they mention it and said they were motivated by the positive response to the diversity in Steven Universe.
https://www.animationmagazine.net/tv/craig-of-the-creek-kids-gone-wild/

There characters were also used in a Twitter post talking about different pronouns

There was also promotion for the ASL rep, even posting an isolated clip to their YouTube
https://www.animationmagazine.net/streaming/clip-craig-learns-asl-in-tonights-craig-of-the-creek/

And there is probably other stuff too but I don't follow CN on Twitter so this is what I just came across.

well.....kids are not supposed to be on twitter, which is an odd move on CN's part......

Maybe they are aiming at adults who watch kids shows with a periphery demographic?

Sometimes, I wish we could have a civil conversation without immediately resorting to calling each other racists/sexists/and other ists. I do agree with what some people said on here about separating how to market from accidentally shooting yourself in the foot with bad marketing by disrespecting your audience LOL (I think that should be a separate topic), but I do also think that people were way too quick to be accusing you of ists--or at least on the verge of it (no wonder the word has lost all meaning rolls eyes). Honestly, the psychology behind these companies is fascinating, though. I don't have a problem with lesbian romances, but I do think you are limiting your audience by purely marketing something as a lesbian romance. A very small percentage of the population is gay, and you might have trouble marketing it to the other, like, 99% of the population if you are trying to solely sell the show on that. That doesn't mean that population is homophobic--it just means they most likely won't have an interest in it. I also think those who are gay would be looking at the show and saying to themselves, "Okay. They are gay. What else?"

Even with a straight romance, you would probably market something additional to the romance aspect. For example, while Gone With the Wind is technically a romance, it's also a historical epic about civil war, which might draw in a male audience in addition to the female romance (in fact, it did, because it's one of the highest grossing films). Similarly, Titanic, while a romance, is also historical and the male audience knows there's going to be a giant iceberg in the latter half, so they might tune in. XD

I mean, imagine if someone came up to you in real life and only told you their sexuality/race but nothing else. You would probably be like... "I dunno where to take this conversation." Tell me more specific things about your characters if you want me to get interested (e.g., hobbies, job, struggles, is their romantic life going up in flames? What kind of world do they live in? How does their sexuality/race impact the story, or does it at all?)