Will the financial loss actually incentivize a change in the behavior of those who made the movie, or are they sufficiently insulated from the fallout of their propaganda piece not recouping its production costs?
I've maintained for a while now that these financial failures don't actually matter the way people think they do because the goal isn't actually to make money but to disseminate the ideological propaganda. Flushing 180 million dollars down the drain is just the accepted cost of enacting more brainwashing that keeps women antagonistic and grinds down the morale of the men. This isn't a business, this is psychological warfare. No one expects to get their money back from the bombs they dropped on the enemy's city. The goal was destruction.
This isn't a business, this is psychological warfare.
THIS is the kind of brevity I need to start employing in normie spaces.
You've summed up this pipeline of agitprop succinctly here, and I'll be using that line next time to explain why they do what they do, because trying to bring awareness to people using multiple paragraphs, ties back to Critical Theory and examples of financial losses over the last two decades just loses the average normie, but this line best explains what's actually happening without having to do a deep dive into the topic matter.
I remember Mike Cernovich talking about this problem on the "right" a few years back. When he was trying to get funding for his hoaxed doco he went to a bunch of "based" or "right wing" rich people for funding and said the overwhelming mentality was one of "that's a great idea but where's the return on investment for me"
The great thing about the truth being quite simple is that you can present it to the smooth brained normie as is and they'll be able to digest it quite easily.
Correct. That subversive movies are a sink for the studio's money does not mean they don't still need a money source. The studio as a whole still has to be sustainable, so the worse the bad movies do the less bad movies they can make.
It's not about the money, it's about sending a message. Namely, propaganda and social engineering.
Secondly, they haven't lost any money. The money was already made. These movies are financed by the CIA on the backend through shell corporations. The money was already looted from the taxpayers and created out of thin air by fed and funneled into black projects by the congress.
I think a lot of people are simply done with girl bosses. We tolerated them when they were hot and rare. Now that they're ugly, unpleasant, and everywhere? Nah man.
About the only people that kinda like Superthot are the Japanese, and only because she looks like a gyaru with that skunk stripe showing on her hair dye.
I'm personally done with women in movies altogether. I used to tolerate the "one token woman on the team that's as good as the men" trope, but at this point, if I see a woman, I assume it's for demoralisation purposes.
Should have been a TV show, or if you insist on making it a movie have it be a team up with Superman and supergirl. She’s a C-list character that universally exists as an addition to Superman and doesn’t function well outside of a Superman story.
"draw me a bored egotistical gen alpha basic bitch and put her in the least interesting pose possible. can we also shitty up the superman logo and make the whole thing look fucking miserable?"
replaced your supergirl character with chunka lookin trailer trash meth bitch nobody likes.
we got what we wanted. the future will know this supergirl only.
yeah i don't think they care about the money really. they can just steal more of that at any time.
they care about destroying all western culture of any kind. and they're doin REALLY FUCKING GREAT! at that.
the same people making these are the ones prining money. they dont give a shit about LoOooOsing money because they print it out of thin air. what matters is the ongoing torrential psyop in the world population
But does it matter?
Will the financial loss actually incentivize a change in the behavior of those who made the movie, or are they sufficiently insulated from the fallout of their propaganda piece not recouping its production costs?
I've maintained for a while now that these financial failures don't actually matter the way people think they do because the goal isn't actually to make money but to disseminate the ideological propaganda. Flushing 180 million dollars down the drain is just the accepted cost of enacting more brainwashing that keeps women antagonistic and grinds down the morale of the men. This isn't a business, this is psychological warfare. No one expects to get their money back from the bombs they dropped on the enemy's city. The goal was destruction.
THIS is the kind of brevity I need to start employing in normie spaces.
You've summed up this pipeline of agitprop succinctly here, and I'll be using that line next time to explain why they do what they do, because trying to bring awareness to people using multiple paragraphs, ties back to Critical Theory and examples of financial losses over the last two decades just loses the average normie, but this line best explains what's actually happening without having to do a deep dive into the topic matter.
I remember Mike Cernovich talking about this problem on the "right" a few years back. When he was trying to get funding for his hoaxed doco he went to a bunch of "based" or "right wing" rich people for funding and said the overwhelming mentality was one of "that's a great idea but where's the return on investment for me"
The great thing about the truth being quite simple is that you can present it to the smooth brained normie as is and they'll be able to digest it quite easily.
Twitter sold for $44B. That money could buy a lot of agitprop movies.
Agreed.
#Minab #168
It's better than the alternative. Imagine living in a world where supergirl makes a billion dollars.
Where people wear hats on their feet and hamburgers eat people
Correct. That subversive movies are a sink for the studio's money does not mean they don't still need a money source. The studio as a whole still has to be sustainable, so the worse the bad movies do the less bad movies they can make.
It's not about the money, it's about sending a message. Namely, propaganda and social engineering.
Secondly, they haven't lost any money. The money was already made. These movies are financed by the CIA on the backend through shell corporations. The money was already looted from the taxpayers and created out of thin air by fed and funneled into black projects by the congress.
That plus all of our money is fake and gay to begin with. If they ever run out they just print more.
So the Producers meets Stalin
I think a lot of people are simply done with girl bosses. We tolerated them when they were hot and rare. Now that they're ugly, unpleasant, and everywhere? Nah man.
About the only people that kinda like Superthot are the Japanese, and only because she looks like a gyaru with that skunk stripe showing on her hair dye.
Having realized how most of the propaganda works i can safely say that japs were pozzed for a while now. They just played it off cool for the otakus.
I'm personally done with women in movies altogether. I used to tolerate the "one token woman on the team that's as good as the men" trope, but at this point, if I see a woman, I assume it's for demoralisation purposes.
Should have been a TV show, or if you insist on making it a movie have it be a team up with Superman and supergirl. She’s a C-list character that universally exists as an addition to Superman and doesn’t function well outside of a Superman story.
christ that fucking poster.
what was the pitch meeting?
"draw me a bored egotistical gen alpha basic bitch and put her in the least interesting pose possible. can we also shitty up the superman logo and make the whole thing look fucking miserable?"
"uh.. this is for an action movie?"
yeah i don't think they care about the money really. they can just steal more of that at any time.
they care about destroying all western culture of any kind. and they're doin REALLY FUCKING GREAT! at that.
She really does have that "air" to her. The tattoos don't help her case.
Really, they're only tearing down the synthetic, replacement culture they themselves erected.
I think this may actually backfire if people decide to embrace actual folk culture instead.
If Hollywood types were in charge of planning the Titanic the only thing they would change is to ensure the ship was captained by a woman.
Superman and most DC films are flopping. Let's change nothing about what people are getting fed up with and ensure the lead is female.
"Put a chick in it and make her gay!"
and lame
the same people making these are the ones prining money. they dont give a shit about LoOooOsing money because they print it out of thin air. what matters is the ongoing torrential psyop in the world population
Box Office
In my European country they paid a lot of news programs to advertise it as if it was a new exciting saga of Superman.
It meant they were desperate.