Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[MagicMouseFan]

The average person doesn't pick up on that nuance when reading something, especially when its a 10 second clip form. They don't distinguish the "I" verse "we" in the way you break it down. Its fine when grading an English paper, but when a normal person reads it they aren't grading it, they are ingesting it based on their perspective of life.

You’re absolutely right and excellent point Disney Irish! It’s not something that many people are going to purposely pay attention to the subtle difference in language when watching a 10 second clip. They’re not there thinking about whether it’s “I” or “we”; they are consuming it based on their own life.

But that raises another question: does it stay in the subconscious?


In a classic study by psychologists Tversky and Kahneman, the framing was shown to matter in decisions. The participants were given a scenario, a disease that would kill 600 people. It was offered in two treatments, one with a positive framing: lives saved; and the other with negative framing: lives lost.


I totally agree with that and that’s a great question Disney Irish! Not many people will intentionally pay attention to the little change in language when watching a 10 second video clip. They aren’t there thinking about whether it’s “I” or “we”; they are watching it based on their own lives.

But that raises another question: does it stay in the subconscious?

In a classic study by psychologists Tversky and Kahneman on the framing effect, the research found that phrasing does make a difference in decisions. The participants were given a scenario, a disease that would kill 600 people. They had to choose between two treatments, one with a positive framing: lives saved, and the other with negative framing: lives lost.

The first one was the positive framing:


• “200 people will be saved.”


• “There is a 33% chance that all 600 people will be saved, and a 66% chance that no one will be saved.”


The second one was the negative framing:


• “400 people will die.”


• “There is a 33% chance that no one will die, and a 66% chance that all 600 will die.”

The outcomes were the same, but people chose the ‘saved’ option in the positive frame and the risky option in the negative frame. The subject’s subconscious reaction was affected by the information provided to them, even if they did not know it.

Exactly how pr, advertising, and the media work. People do not think through every word that they say, but the way something is phrased does affect their perception. That is why sound bites and headlines are so carefully chosen. It may be intentional or not, but I do think that the switch from “I” to “we” does change the way a message is delivered, even if people aren’t actually paying attention to it.

 

[Disney Irish]

As I showed, both lines can read differently. The two are not exactly the same, to you they might be. They are both trying to say the same thing but there's a subtle difference. Like I said, agree to disagree. None of this changes my view on Mackie. He's been a favorite of mine from the day he stepped on screen in winter soldier. Cut the check!

I think the only way it can be read differently is if you're trying to find a reason to fault what Mackie is saying. As I've mentioned before, reasonable people can disagree on the wording, but the intent and message both convey cannot be disagree upon, even if you think they might be.

 

[brideck]

I'm sorry but no offense, this comes across as AI written drivel with no real understanding of how people actually write, especially the constant use of my full Avatar name, which no one here does unless tagging them.

Given my experience with AI from my technical life, I can spot an AI written response. And have long suspected many of your posts are AI written. Maybe English isn't your first language and you're using AI to help you formulate your response. But many of your posts don't come across as written by a human.

AI written with small humanizing tweaks or frames to be clear.

GPT will even identify it as such for you if you ask.

This isn't really a problem in and of itself, but if people here wanted to talk to GPT about Marvel publicity controversies they'd be logged into GPT and doing that, instead of being here.

 

[Disney Irish]

AI written with small humanizing tweaks or frames to be clear.

GPT will even identify it as such for you if you ask.

This isn't really a problem in and of itself, but if people here wanted to talk to GPT about Marvel publicity controversies they'd be logged into GPT and doing that, instead of being here.

I've been too lazy to put it through the filter, but yeah I believe others have and called the poster out for the same. I've tried to call out posts before, but they gotten the mods to delete them.

There is a Tuber with the same handle from Croatia that has put out a few, what appear to be, AI created videos, wonder if they are the same.

 

[Willmark]

I've been too lazy to put it through the filter, but yeah I believe others have and called the poster out for the same. I've tried to call out posts before, but they gotten the mods to delete them.

There is a Tuber with the same handle from Croatia that has put out a few, what appear to be, AI created videos, wonder if they are the same.

Very good point Disney Irish! I’m enjoying your thoughts on the matter and very much look forward to engaging with you in the future!

 

[erasure fan1]

I think the only way it can be read differently is if you're trying to find a reason to fault what Mackie is saying.

Exactly! That's the point. We know there's plenty of people looking to do just what you're saying, finding fault in Disney. That's why wording is important. Not censoring, not making people read a canned corporate responses. And I get it, you don't think it will really matter how it's worded, it still won't help. Personally I think it can.

 

[TP2000]

I believe that was the point @Chi84 was getting at. When a film does poorly, people here scramble to attribute its failure to sociopolitical factors (a gay storyline, the views of one of its actors, etc.). When it does well, however, we’re told that all that audiences care about is the quality of the movie, with all sociopolitical considerations swept aside. This is not a consistent or fair framing.

The issue I have with that statement is that many of us here have been chatting in this forum for a few years now. And we remember when...

The global failures of movies like Strange World and Lightyear were being blamed on a vast right-wing internet conspiracy made up of posters in forums such as this, YouTube channels, and bloggers and such. This conspiracy network, mainly based in the USA, was able to prevent a Billion or more potential movie customers around the world from buying tickets to Strange World and Lightyear.

It wasn't just that those family movies sucked and had virtue signaling gay relationships shoehorned in to them which made a lot of parents (AKA customers) wary of taking their children to see those movies, it was that somehow people here expressing their opinions of those movies prevented a global free market from purchasing tickets to those movies en masse. If only we had all shut up about it, Strange World would have been a big hit.

That is also not consistent or fair framing.

 

[LittleBuford]

This conspiracy network, mainly based in the USA, was able to prevent a Billion or more potential movie customers around the world from buying tickets to Strange World and Lightyear.

No-one claimed this, at least not in this forum. Most reasonable people here blamed the films' failure on factors that had nothing, or very little, to do with their inclusion of gay characters.

 

[erasure fan1]

Actually, there were articles yesterday in publications like Forbes, Deadline and Vulture that jumped in to clarify and defend what the man said (emphasis fully intended).

I didn't see any I'll have to search them out. But as soon as I heard it, I figured someone's going to take issue. Lol

 

[TP2000]

No-one claimed this, at least not in this forum. Most reasonable people here blamed the films' failure on factors that had nothing, or very little, to do with their inclusion of gay characters.

It was actually called the "hate network". It was a concept started by @Casper Gutman about 400 pages ago in this thread in November, 2023. Although it wasn't labeled the "hate network" (love that branding!) specifically until June, 2024.

Casper's posts on this phenomenon, where a global network of hatred went after anything woke Disney did in their movies and caused those products to fail in the global marketplace, were Liked and supported by a gaggle of folks here. Posters such as myself were called out as members of this network. Sadly, our old friend Buddy Thomas, who seems to have disappeared, was also one of those supporting Casper's claim of the global hate network a year or more ago. I miss our Buddy!

I won't do multiple quotes from a year or two ago, but here's a good one from '24 that sums it up well for this purpose;

Disney is enemy number one in the entertainment industry because the overall goal of the hate network is seizing control of or coercing institutions involved in the education of young people. The motive is panic over a perceived inability to reproduce certain ideologies in the young....

Your Lightyear timeline is way off. The assault on that film began well before its release. News of the same-sex couple leaked and the hate network launched a full court press. They had already begun an attack by that point because Tim Allen was replaced.

And then, a few hours later, this person offered a pitch-perfect response that many of us in the alleged "hate network" were already thinking. I Liked this post at the time, and it made me laugh again just now when I found it...

Just when you thought it was safe to read a thread again, the usual suspects come up with even more insipid and inane ways to try and defend bad output.

So anyone who doesn't like a movie that some of the movie experts in here like is now a member of "the hate network". And this alleged "network" has the power to influence tens of millions of people to not go watch a movie based on their word only.

"Hello in there, Cliff. Tell me - What color is the sky in your world?" - Dr. Frasier Crane

I'm sure a lot of those posts from 2023/2024 where several of us here were accused of being part of "the hate network" that controlled global movie audiences and caused Strange World and Lightyear to bomb due to their gay content have been deleted. But you're welcome to go back and re-read this thread from the fall of '23 through the summer of '24 if you have a few hours to kill.

I'd recommend, to save your sanity, you don't do that. But just rest assured that I distinctly remember being accused of being a member of the global hate network and using my online powers to prevent parents from Mexico City to Munich to Mumbai from taking their children to see Strange World. You can't make that up!

Speaking of 2023... When does Season 2 of Ms. Marvel drop? Or did the hate network claim another one?

 

[Disney Irish]

Here we go again…classic DisneyIrish. When you can’t refute something, you just dismiss it, mock it, or question the person instead of the argument. It’s your go to move.

Now it’s “AI-written drivel” because the argument was too well-structured? Come on. If that’s the best you’ve got, it just proves my point… you can’t engage, so you deflect.

And this is why you're going back on ignore. I'm not going to go back and forth with AI responses.

If you want to have a good faith discussion that doesn't involve AI responses I'm more than happy to have it.

 

[Disney Irish]

Exactly! That's the point. We know there's plenty of people looking to do just what you're saying, finding fault in Disney. That's why wording is important. Not censoring, not making people read a canned corporate responses. And I get it, you don't think it will really matter how it's worded, it still won't help. Personally I think it can.

Yep, good summary of our discussion.

But yes I don't think it would matter if it was reworded, as others have said as well, people will find fault with it anyways.

 

[MagicMouseFan]

And this is why you're going back on ignore. I'm not going to go back and forth with AI responses.

If you want to have a good faith discussion that doesn't involve AI responses I'm more than happy to have it.

Ok..put me back on ignore. For the record, this is my last post to Disney Irish (who for some reason hates when I use his name in a post...I didn't know??)

Here is my post that offended Irish so much he put me on ignore....

You’re absolutely right and excellent point Disney Irish! It’s not something that many people are going to purposely pay attention to the subtle difference in language when watching a 10 second clip. They’re not there thinking about whether it’s “I” or “we”; they are consuming it based on their own life.

But that raises another question: does it stay in the subconscious?


In a classic study by psychologists Tversky and Kahneman, the framing was shown to matter in decisions. The participants were given a scenario, a disease that would kill 600 people. It was offered in two treatments, one with a positive framing: lives saved; and the other with negative framing: lives lost.


I totally agree with that and that’s a great question Disney Irish! Not many people will intentionally pay attention to the little change in language when watching a 10 second video clip. They aren’t there thinking about whether it’s “I” or “we”; they are watching it based on their own lives.

But that raises another question: does it stay in the subconscious?

In a classic study by psychologists Tversky and Kahneman on the framing effect, the research found that phrasing does make a difference in decisions. The participants were given a scenario, a disease that would kill 600 people. They had to choose between two treatments, one with a positive framing: lives saved, and the other with negative framing: lives lost.

The first one was the positive framing:


• “200 people will be saved.”


• “There is a 33% chance that all 600 people will be saved, and a 66% chance that no one will be saved.”


The second one was the negative framing:


• “400 people will die.”


• “There is a 33% chance that no one will die, and a 66% chance that all 600 will die.”

The outcomes were the same, but people chose the ‘saved’ option in the positive frame and the risky option in the negative frame. The subject’s subconscious reaction was affected by the information provided to them, even if they did not know it.

Exactly how pr, advertising, and the media work. People do not think through every word that they say, but the way something is phrased does affect their perception. That is why sound bites and headlines are so carefully chosen. It may be intentional or not, but I do think that the switch from “I” to “we” does change the way a message is delivered, even if people aren’t actually paying attention to it.

 

[HauntedPirate]

Ok..put me back on ignore. For the record, this is my last post to Disney Irish (who for some reason hates when I use his name in a post...I didn't know??)

Here is my post that offended Irish so much he put me on ignore....

You’re absolutely right and excellent point Disney Irish! Most people don’t consciously pick up on the nuance of wording in a 10 sec clip. They’re not sitting there breaking down “I” vs. “we”; they’re absorbing it through their own life perspective.

But that raises another question: is their subconscious reaction shaped by it?

A classic study by psychologists Tversky and Kahneman on the framing effect showed how wording impacts decisions. Participants were given a scenario about a disease outbreak expected to kill 600 people. They had to choose between two treatment options, framed either positively (lives saved) or negatively (lives lost):

Positive framing:

• “200 people will be saved.”

• “There is a 33% chance that all 600 people will be saved, and a 66% chance that no one will be saved.”

Negative framing:

• “400 people will die.”

• “There is a 33% chance that no one will die, and a 66% chance that all 600 will die.”

Even though the actual outcomes were identical, people overwhelmingly preferred the “saved” option in the positive framing and leaned toward the riskier choice in the negative framing. Their subconscious reaction was influenced by how the information was presented, even if they didn’t realize it.

Exactly how PR, advertising, and media framing work, people don’t consciously analyze every word, but how something is phrased affects their perception. That’s why soundbites and headlines are crafted so carefully. Whether intentional or not, it is of my opinion that the difference between “I” and “we” changes how a message is received, even if people aren’t actively thinking about it.

Total AI content.

Just curious - How does one detect AI-created posts with 100% accuracy? Is it a special ability, a super-premium feature, or some other way that we aren't aware of? And really, if you believe someone is posting AI-created posts, report the post. That's what the ToS state you should do.

 

[Disney Irish]

Total AI content.

Just curious - How does one detect AI-created posts with 100% accuracy? Is it a special ability, a super-premium feature, or some other way that we aren't aware of? And really, if you believe someone is posting AI-created posts, report the post. That's what the ToS state you should do.

After working with AI and the responses it gives, such as ChatGPT or other AI tools, you can tell when something doesn't read as though its written by a human. Most humans have a style, or simple errors happen, that come through in their writing, AI doesn't do this. AI responses end up sounding too "clean" for lack of a better word.

 

[Agent H]

After working with AI and the responses it gives, such as ChatGPT or other AI tools, you can tell when something doesn't read as though its written by a human. Most humans have a style, or simple errors happen, that come through in their writing, AI doesn't do this. AI responses end up sounding too "clean" for lack of a better word.

Well I guess I don’t have to worry about being mistaken for ai then my posts are full of grammatical errors that I then have to go back and edit

 

[Agent H]

Well after considering all points carefully I have come to the conclusion that I suppose he could have worded it a little better marvel has had plenty of experience with our disappointing new reality Anthony Mackie Is still forgiven in my book

 

[brideck]

Just curious - How does one detect AI-created posts with 100% accuracy? Is it a special ability, a super-premium feature, or some other way that we aren't aware of? And really, if you believe someone is posting AI-created posts, report the post. That's what the ToS state you should do.

These posts are slightly greyer than the ToS, which states "However, it is not acceptable to use AI to create entire posts." These are not entire posts. They typically have human stuff wrapped around them or minor edits to try to personalize the content.

But sure, if you want people to report them, that can be done.

 

[Disney Irish]

These posts are slightly greyer than the ToS, which states "However, it is not acceptable to use AI to create entire posts." These are not entire posts. They typically have human stuff wrapped around them or minor edits to try to personalize the content.

But sure, if you want people to report them, that can be done.

Which is the reason why I never reported them before. But because someone made a point to say it should be done, I'll start doing it. Maybe it'll help stop posters from doing it, well that is the hope anyways.

 

[TP2000]

Total AI content.

Just curious - How does one detect AI-created posts with 100% accuracy? Is it a special ability, a super-premium feature, or some other way that we aren't aware of? And really, if you believe someone is posting AI-created posts, report the post. That's what the ToS state you should do.

I'm baffled too. Why would anyone go on a discussion board and then get a computer program to have their discussion for them?

That makes no sense. But then, I've been here for over 20 years and I'm still baffled that people actually have ignore lists or complain to some poor moderator to remove differing opinions. Honestly, what's the point of all that censorship? Don't like someone's opinion? Note it and move on. Or, and this is where it gets really good, refute the opinion you disagree with and include some facts and data that back up your own opinion!

Before you know it, people might be.... having a discussion on a discussion forum!