So is the new Thor: Love and Thunder any good?

On 2022-07-08 17:10:10 +0000, T987654321 said:

> So is the new Thor: Love and Thunder any good?

No ... it's just "Politically Correct" / "Equality" garbage with
Natalie Portman playing a female Thor. :-\

On 07/08/2022 06:47 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2022-07-08 17:10:10 +0000, T987654321 said:
>
>> So is the new Thor: Love and Thunder any good?

> No ... it's just "Politically Correct" / "Equality" garbage with Natalie
> Portman playing a female Thor. :-\

Is she as good at playing Thor as she was at playing an exotic dancer in
"Closer"?
:-D

Grosses
DOMESTIC (46.9%)
$233,271,136
INTERNATIONAL (53.1%)
$264,600,000
WORLDWIDE
$497,871,136

In article <d66d7457-89fe-460e-95c5-5b50b196236cn@googlegroups.com>,
T987654321 <qwrtz123@gmail.com> wrote:
>Grosses
>DOMESTIC (46.9%)
>$233,271,136
>INTERNATIONAL (53.1%)
>$264,600,000
>WORLDWIDE
>$497,871,136

Thor: Ragnarok was a sure-footed action-comedy. This one replaces
"sure" with "lead". I think all the stars did what they were asked to just
fine. Would that they had been asked to do something different.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

On 7/8/2022 4:47 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2022-07-08 17:10:10 +0000, T987654321 said:
>
>> So is the new Thor:  Love and Thunder any good?
>
> No ... it's just "Politically Correct" / "Equality" garbage with Natalie
> Portman playing a female Thor.  :-\
>

What should have been about, rocket scientist? Obviously, even though
the movie biz has been around for about a hundred years you seem to know
what's bankable. "Bankable" means what will make them money, because
it's a business, after all. Some movies are good but make no money,
which apparently would make you happy in the Thor franchise's case.

> Trotsky
> > Your Name
> >
> > No ... it's just "Politically Correct" / "Equality" garbage with Natalie
> > Portman playing a female Thor. :-\
>
> What should have been about, rocket scientist? Obviously, even though
> the movie biz has been around for about a hundred years you seem to know
> what's bankable. "Bankable" means what will make them money, because
> it's a business, after all. Some movies are good but make no money,
> which apparently would make you happy in the Thor franchise's case.

Seems to me that the movie/tv business nowadays is more concerned about
political correctness and checking off the mandated Progressive propaganda
points then making a good flick, even if this means alienating the existing
fanbase and losing money in the process.

The modern American executive class is even more brainwashed by social
media then regular people, to the point their entire lives revolve around how
they're perceived on Facebook, with the result that movies/tv shows are seen
as vehicles for shilling the Progressive agenda regardless of the financial costs.

(This space ___ reserved for Trotsky calling me a sock puppet.)

On 7/22/2022 4:13 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> Trotsky
>>> Your Name
>>>
>>> No ... it's just "Politically Correct" / "Equality" garbage with Natalie
>>> Portman playing a female Thor. :-\
>>
>> What should have been about, rocket scientist? Obviously, even though
>> the movie biz has been around for about a hundred years you seem to know
>> what's bankable. "Bankable" means what will make them money, because
>> it's a business, after all. Some movies are good but make no money,
>> which apparently would make you happy in the Thor franchise's case.
>
> Seems to me that the movie/tv business nowadays is more concerned about
> political correctness and checking off the mandated Progressive propaganda
> points then making a good flick, even if this means alienating the existing
> fanbase and losing money in the process.
>
> The modern American executive class is even more brainwashed by social
> media then regular people, to the point their entire lives revolve around how
> they're perceived on Facebook, with the result that movies/tv shows are seen
> as vehicles for shilling the Progressive agenda regardless of the financial costs.
>
> (This space ___ reserved for Trotsky calling me a sock puppet.)

You lost me at "business...more concerned about...X...than...money".

> moviepig
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > The modern American executive class is even more brainwashed by social
> > media then regular people, to the point their entire lives revolve around how
> > they're perceived on Facebook, with the result that movies/tv shows are seen
> > as vehicles for shilling the Progressive agenda regardless of the financial costs.
>
> You lost me at "business...more concerned about...X...than...money".

The Wall Street corporate media happily became the US Government’s
Propaganda Dept. during WWII (and I thank them for their service)
and they obviously retained those skills, which they're now using to
promote their own agenda.

There's no denying that Hollywood has gone all-out in supporting
the Progressive/Woke movement and the message is simply more
important then the money (which they're still making, even if it's less).

These are True Believers we're talking about.

On 7/22/2022 9:24 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 7/22/2022 4:13 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>> Trotsky
>>>> Your Name
>>>>
>>>> No ... it's just "Politically Correct" / "Equality" garbage with
>>>> Natalie
>>>> Portman playing a female Thor.  :-\
>>>
>>> What should have been about, rocket scientist? Obviously, even though
>>> the movie biz has been around for about a hundred years you seem to know
>>> what's bankable. "Bankable" means what will make them money, because
>>> it's a business, after all. Some movies are good but make no money,
>>> which apparently would make you happy in the Thor franchise's case.
>>
>> Seems to me that the movie/tv business nowadays is more concerned about
>> political correctness and checking off the mandated Progressive
>> propaganda
>> points then making a good flick, even if this means alienating the
>> existing
>> fanbase and losing money in the process.
>>
>> The modern American executive class is even more brainwashed by social
>> media then regular people, to the point their entire lives revolve
>> around how
>> they're perceived on Facebook, with the result that movies/tv shows
>> are seen
>> as vehicles for shilling the Progressive agenda regardless of the
>> financial costs.
>>
>> (This space ___ reserved for Trotsky calling me a sock puppet.)
>
> You lost me at "business...more concerned about...X...than...money".
>

The sockpuppet would've lost anybody with a fully functioning brain. If
he isn't one, perhaps the lying motherfucker can make up some fake
details of his existence on the planet. Those, at least, I find
entertaining.

On 7/24/2022 1:12 AM, RichA wrote:
> On Tuesday, 19 July 2022 at 05:29:16 UTC-4, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 7/8/2022 4:47 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 2022-07-08 17:10:10 +0000, T987654321 said:
>>>
>>>> So is the new Thor: Love and Thunder any good?
>>>
>>> No ... it's just "Politically Correct" / "Equality" garbage with Natalie
>>> Portman playing a female Thor. :-\
>>>
>> What should have been about, rocket scientist? Obviously, even though
>> the movie biz has been around for about a hundred years you seem to know
>> what's bankable. "Bankable" means what will make them money, because
>> it's a business, after all. Some movies are good but make no money,
>> which apparently would make you happy in the Thor franchise's case.
>
> But it still doesn't explain why they can't be really good, though FEW have been.

So your syphilitic mind thinks it's the final arbiter of what's "really
good?" Movies are a business and if they make billions and billions of
dollars as MCU movies have, that's "really good." They wouldn't make
that money if people weren't paying to see them. You're a fucking brain
dead eunuch on a dead social medium telling a handful of people what
"really good" is, that couldn't be possibly be any more fucked in the
head than it already is.

> Good acting, good plots, good dialog, good on-screen interrelationships to go with the $150M in
> special effects. "The Batman" was another one released not too long ago that was
> just dull. Ladle-on the brooding, the ever-present rain, the uber-sleaziness of fake
> New York that for some reasons leftists seem to pine for. It's overdone. It's like the writers
> and directors read one line in the propaganda playbook: "Beat people over the head endlessly
> with the same thing and you'll convince them of whatever you are trying to sell." It must work, on stupid people,
> since these movies do make money. Even the audience doesn't really care any more. The last time I saw
> a genuine reaction of audience pleasure at a Superhero movie was when Wolverine told someone to F--- off in a 3 second
> cameo.
>
>