Joshua, you nailed it on the head. The fact that people can interpret what you said as "straight from Fox News" is dumbfounding.
Kirk, to your point you're saying a comedian's job is to make people happy and entertain them? I think that's a narrow definition of comedy. Comedians (or the 'joker/jester', as we know it through archetype) are not just jumping fools entertaining the masses, their roles in the earliest of times are to hold a mirror to society, often in bleak jest to shine light on topics or perspectives we wouldn't willingly consider at our own discretion. That often means venturing into uncharted waters, crossing cultural taboos and -- GASP -- saying something potentially offensive. There's a slew of legendary comics that continue in this role. It's essential. It's their job.
The second you put limits on anything and deem it 'untouchable,' in speech or comedy, you're not 'progressing' but regressing. Let me stop right here and say, "No, I do not mean you should be allowed to espouse hateful rhetoric that incites violence." I also don't believe you can say anything without repercussions. What I AM saying is that a comic should not be bound by puritanical standards so that the lowest threshold of tolerance is sheltered from a potentially offensive statement in jest. That's like banning steaks because children can't chew them. Where 'woke culture' goes awry isn't WHAT they think is offensive (that's subjective and free to hold for every person), its insisting that the offenders are destroyed for the act of offending. And yes, there is a very real DEMAND to destroy those that dare offend the far leaning left-wing AND right-wing.
Before you think I'm ripping some lines from Fox News, know that I don't find all jokes funny either. Like you, I don't particularly take a shine to racism, sexism, rape or pedophilia jokes. I think they're dated and low hanging fruit that weak comics cling to for shock value. But do I think they should be destroyed for uttering them? No. What should we make of them then? Exactly this: Change the channel. Don't attend their shows. Ignore them. If they're truly 'failing at their job' then their audiences will dwindle and that good ol' chestnut of capitalist theory will take hold. To revisit the food analogy, "If you can't/don't eat steak, don't order it." But don't shut down the steakhouse.
This reactionary, puritanical cleansing of all things deemed unholy -- ERP -- sorry, I got mixed up with the first wave of cancel culture, ie. religious fundamentalism -- is not what I'd call progress. The world, in my opinion, is getting better through education and dialogue. Shutting down and destroying those who transgress these "lines of decency" works no better than the prohibition did for alcohol or the war on drugs for, well, drugs.
Please consider what I said without dismissing it as right-wing, FOX news bullshit. I can assure you I detest nothing more than that faux, scumbag, profit driven shit pot of pseudo news spewing, hate inspiring, lowest denominator appealing populist crap. I'm a moderate liberal, if you can believe it.
Welp. I can't clarify my stance any further. If rolling your eyes and groaning is your only retort then I'll leave you to your preference of trite platitudes over meaningful discourse.
A final thought: As I'm an audience to your initial post, it stands to reason that I'm right in this debate. Correct? Lol.
David, it seems my comment was spontaneously (or deliberately) removed. Either way, it's a pity a contrasting opinion couldn't be voiced in rebuttal to your statement.
I won't go to the trouble of committing anymore time to restating my initial post -- as it was extensive and several paragraphs in length -- but I'll address your opinion towards my perceived attitude of 'elitism.'
You seem to be confusing elitism with competency. My argument is in support of competent and experienced individuals weighing in and accurately criticizing an artform with sound rationale, metrics and standards that reflect the intricacies of a complex craft (ie. filmmaking.) This is in support of competency. An elitist attitude would advocate for privilege, wealth and social status as the benchmarks of determining the worth of arts and culture. "Pro Competency" is not the same as elitism.
Hopefully this reply isn't flagged or removed simply because another person in this thread is offended or 'runs out of patience.' Doing that would, I don't know... be kinda' elitist... wouldn't it?
I just realized how I should have just responded to the thread vs. nesting it under your initial message.
Sorry, didn't mean for that to seem like I was directing my comment at you. I agreed with your point.
Anyway, yes, everyone knows mathematics is a tool of the patriarchy. Haha.
Just thought to chime in on the 'almost made its money back' part:
A film that is made for 100M and grosses -- lets say, for ease of argument -- 100M domestic and international. Sweet, we broke even, right?? Nope. Not even close. Don't get me wrong, a 100M opening weekend would be a slam dunk, but there is a misunderstanding with a film's budget and its box office gross. That 100M film that earned 100M gross is actually 50M in the red. Theaters don't play films for free and give 100% of the profits to the film (I wish!). They keep half (or more).
So, sad to say, no... even if BoP recouped its budget in both international and domestic they're still 50M in the hole. And we're also assuming this 100M budget is INCLUDING marketing expenditures (which can get absurdly high on big IP and comic book fanfare).
From what I've read the film under-performed. Call it a bomb, call it a turkey, call it whatever you like. Numbers don't lie and there is no sexist secret agenda when people comment on said numbers.
Though I can agree with the statement of corporate Hollywood studios 'hedging their bets' and playing it 'safe' with producing known hits to massive IP's, I would bring up the fact that making a 150M+ film is NOT playing it safe. It's like saying "Well betting on black at the roulette wheel is a 50/50 shot! That's not bad odds! LET ME PUT 150M ON BLACK!"
There's an attitude that 'without these big pictures from Marvel how would the studios make money to produce smaller films.' Luckily, I got an answer: don't gamble 1B producing 6 films! Sure, splurge a few hundred million on some 'safe-bet' tentpoles. Take the remaining 700M and make 10x 50M dollar mid-range pics (original stories aplenty -- you may just create your own franchise by accident!), and finally, use the remaining 200M and make 20x low-budget 10M dollar films with rising young stars. Now you got:
32 Films diversified across the field that are likely going to bring back a fat payday (your 2x tentpole IP's), name-driven mid-level films, and a slew of low-budgets with a crop of rising talents you helped foster. Did I mention that's 32x films employing a full crew and actors? Seems like a healthier way to spend one's cash.