And i get that somebody, no mater what, will be upset about something.
I was simply saying those people being upset is acceptable and and expected. You cant make a female led movie without them getting their panties in a twist. So good. Their anger means carol danvers is being done in a way that at least heads in the correct direction.
Lance845 wrote: "Anti feminist" is like saying "pro racist" in that, for whatever reason, you have decided that equality or representation or whatever is something that needs to be fought or have a stand taken against it.
Yeah. Equality activists have idiots amongst them. But the core message is a "no gak" thing any reasonable person is for.
Basically, who gives a gak what the anti feminists have to say?
I was attempting for a term more neutral than incel or MRA. I'm talking about a very small segment of the audience who are very active in YouTube comments. I saw the marketing as a sort of a negative dog whistle, where most people won't notice anything political but a small few will be triggered.
And for better or for worse, stirring up the anti-whatevers or tiptoeing around them is now an unavoidable aspect of marketing.
I'm with Lance on this one - that part of the audience is so small, they probably aren't worth worrying about.
This just needs to be a good/decent movie and any of that really won't matter at all.
Lance845 wrote: I was simply saying those people being upset is acceptable and and expected. You cant make a female led movie without them getting their panties in a twist. So good. Their anger means carol danvers is being done in a way that at least heads in the correct direction.
To be clear, this is only yet a reaction to how the film is being marketed.
We have yet to see how Carol Danvers is being presented, what her story is, what level of agency she will demonstrate, and to what extent Xth wave themes will be presented or addressed. As a USAF pilot, she can't be so deeply oppressed, as that's a pretty high profile and competitive assignment.
I think a lot of people are reading an awful lot from a two minute trailer...... and that is just fine.
I know I am willing to give it a shot. If it is even a second level Marvel movie (such as Dr. Strange), I am okay with that as I know next to nothing about Captain Marvel.
Captain Marvel will not suffer from the problem of being inexplicably excellent at whatever she tries. Even before being turned into a super warrior by the Kree, Carol Danvers was already an elite fighter pilot. So I think we can put that aside.
The actual issue is, being really powerful doesn’t actually amount to being interesting. Hollywood forgets this simple truth all the time and, lately, especially regarding female characters.
Genoside07 wrote: Terminator 2 was a great film with a natural progression of Sarah Conner. She finds out a future robot is out to kill her and starts to
prepare by improving herself; training with guns, there is a reason and history shown.
Captain Marvel is looking like the new Star Wars with the Mary sue syndrome; No reason why the person is so good at something. Just natural.
Rey a homeless girl that spends her days tearing down old war equipment suddenly can fly like a ace and do powerful things with the force with no training.
That is bad story telling but people try to lump it in with misogynist and feminist to deflect the real problem .. its a bad movie.
I am hoping they don't fail but they must have a good story. the current trailer was't the best so I start to worry.
Well, to be fair, at least to a layman like me, the explanation why Captain Marvel is "good at stuff" is because she was essentially kidnapped, brainwashed, and made into a living weapon?
Genoside07 wrote: Terminator 2 was a great film with a natural progression of Sarah Conner. She finds out a future robot is out to kill her and starts to
prepare by improving herself; training with guns, there is a reason and history shown.
Captain Marvel is looking like the new Star Wars with the Mary sue syndrome; No reason why the person is so good at something. Just natural.
It... really isn't. That's obvious even from the just the trailers. Earth background aside (where she's at least a professional fighter pilot), she gets power (and maybe skills) pumped into her in a process that's apparently tortuous agony, and overwrites her original mind and memories.
Her power comes from somewhere specific and has a high cost attached. There isn't any Mary Sue 'just a natural' in play here in any way at all.
The challenge is making the alien warrior persona breaking under her innate humanity interesting and believable. We'll actually need to the see the film for that.
Genoside07 wrote: Terminator 2 was a great film with a natural progression of Sarah Conner. She finds out a future robot is out to kill her and starts to
prepare by improving herself; training with guns, there is a reason and history shown.
Captain Marvel is looking like the new Star Wars with the Mary sue syndrome; No reason why the person is so good at something. Just natural.
Rey a homeless girl that spends her days tearing down old war equipment suddenly can fly like a ace and do powerful things with the force with no training.
That is bad story telling but people try to lump it in with misogynist and feminist to deflect the real problem .. its a bad movie.
I am hoping they don't fail but they must have a good story. the current trailer was't the best so I start to worry.
Well, to be fair, at least to a layman like me, the explanation why Captain Marvel is "good at stuff" is because she was essentially kidnapped, brainwashed, and made into a living weapon?
Well... it depends on a lot of things...
If it's closer to original origin Carol, she was an air force pilot and a bad ass in her own right. Then gets enhanced (Think Captain America except she wasn't a diseased weakling to begin with).
"
If it's closer to the current origin, her mother is Kree so she is a human Kree hybrid and the "enhancments" are less enhancements and more a trigger to awaken her Kree genetic potential.
It's much less shes "good at stuff because reasons" and more she has always lived a life that would have made her good at stuff and then stuff happens to her that kicks her up to another level.
As an aside, I don't think Marvel have ever actually said that she was the most powerful person in the marvel universe. I believe they said she was the most powerful hero we have seen so far. If the likes of Quasar or Adam Warlock were to arrive and be heroes I am sure they would at the very least rival her if not out class her.
Lance845 wrote: As an aside, I don't think Marvel have ever actually said that she was the most powerful person in the marvel universe. I believe they said she was the most powerful hero we have seen so far. If the likes of Quasar or Adam Warlock were to arrive and be heroes I am sure they would at the very least rival her if not out class her.
CM isn't be anywhere near close to the most powerful person in the MCU. That honor currently sits with Thanos, wielder of the Infinity Gauntlet, master of the Infinity Stones.
If we are talking about heroes, Guardians 2 showed the cocoon of Adam Warlock, currently work in progress. Presumably, he survived the Snap.
If we are talking about heroes who we have seen fully-formed, when the Fox-Disney merger completes, the most powerful hero in the MCU will be the Silver Surfer, master of the Power Cosmic.
Well, and that's the thing too. Marvel has plenty of cosmic level threats she can fight so she's not just curb-stomping normals. She'll be a powerful character, but with powerful opposition the film can stay interesting.
It's actually a more serious problem for the Marvel movies that already happened. Cap and the Avengers spent a lot of time kicking normals around like schoolyard bullies, because of a lack of decent villains.
Lance845 wrote: As an aside, I don't think Marvel have ever actually said that she was the most powerful person in the marvel universe. I believe they said she was the most powerful hero we have seen so far. If the likes of Quasar or Adam Warlock were to arrive and be heroes I am sure they would at the very least rival her if not out class her.
CM isn't be anywhere near close to the most powerful person in the MCU. That honor currently sits with Thanos, wielder of the Infinity Gauntlet, master of the Infinity Stones.
If we are talking about heroes, Guardians 2 showed the cocoon of Adam Warlock, currently work in progress. Presumably, he survived the Snap.
If we are talking about heroes who we have seen fully-formed, when the Fox-Disney merger completes, the most powerful hero in the MCU will be the Silver Surfer, master of the Power Cosmic.
From what I can tell, it is being coded and marketed that way.
It can be both.
There is a sub-faction of toolbags who can't stand to see non-white CIS male leads succeed, thinking the world is some sort of zero-sum game in which the presence of a non-white CIS male lead somehow directly devalues their existence as white CIS males. feth 'em.
this is not the place for that kind of thing John
On Topic: I have watched the trailer a couple more times and she is growing on me, I think I have nailed down why i did not like it, its her accent, she sounds so dim and comes across as wooden, not her fault i think its a british/american thing, yanks from certain parts of the US just sound dim to us sometimes, and vice versa of course.
Lance845 wrote: As an aside, I don't think Marvel have ever actually said that she was the most powerful person in the marvel universe. I believe they said she was the most powerful hero we have seen so far. If the likes of Quasar or Adam Warlock were to arrive and be heroes I am sure they would at the very least rival her if not out class her.
CM isn't be anywhere near close to the most powerful person in the MCU. That honor currently sits with Thanos, wielder of the Infinity Gauntlet, master of the Infinity Stones.
If we are talking about heroes, Guardians 2 showed the cocoon of Adam Warlock, currently work in progress. Presumably, he survived the Snap.
If we are talking about heroes who we have seen fully-formed, when the Fox-Disney merger completes, the most powerful hero in the MCU will be the Silver Surfer, master of the Power Cosmic.
Wouldn’t Phoenix overpower Silver Surfer?
Full-on Phoenix isn't a hero, but an existential Cosmic threat a la Thanos or Glactus. I believe that Thanos would be more powerful than Phoenix, but it's hard to say - both villains
AduroT wrote: I don’t think Phoenix is a Villain (or hero) so much as a force of nature?
Same goes for Galactus. He's not a malicious entity trying to ruin or subjugate others. He simply is and what he does is simply a function of his existence.
Genoside07 wrote:Captain Marvel is looking like the new Star Wars with the Mary sue syndrome; No reason why the person is so good at something. Just natural.
So off base. It's been addressed already, but you should look up what it takes to first pass basic training and advanced training in the Air Force, and THEN compare that to what you have to go through to be a fighter pilot. If a woman found a Green Lantern ring, would that make her a Mary Sue right off the bat? Provided she could will constructs, of course. Now if a female anime illustrator or engineer found the ring, would they be a Mary Sue? Nope, not in the slightest. Carol's power upgrade has nothing to do with anything but chance. Her indoctrination, which I assume will come with downloaded fighting abilities, isn't any more Mary Sue than the GL example. Yelling Mary Sue at anything you don't like not only cheapens the term, but makes you look petty.
JohnHwangDD wrote: For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.
CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.
Is CM a feminist film?
As far as I can see, so far anyway it is a superhero film.
What did I miss?
From what I can tell, it is being coded and marketed that way.
It can be both.
There is a sub-faction of toolbags who can't stand to see non-white CIS male leads succeed, thinking the world is some sort of zero-sum game in which the presence of a non-white CIS male lead somehow directly devalues their existence as white CIS males. feth 'em.
As far as the bolded: just... wow. What if the film doesn't identify as a feminist film, does it then matter how it's "coded"?
As far as the red: there is also a sub-section of toolbags who see subjugation and ostracization where none exists, thinking that any criticism of a non-white CIS male lead is automatically every applicable -ism or -phobia that can peripherally be applicable because non-white CIS male characters are beyond reproach.
See how easy that was? Wouldn't it be nifty if we could keep politics out of this discussion and simply focus on what actually DOES OR DOES NOT make a character "good" in a film like this?
All I have to say about trailers is that they can be misleading. Case in point: The Dark Knight Rises trailer made it look like the film would be good.
JohnHwangDD wrote: For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.
CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.
Is CM a feminist film?
As far as I can see, so far anyway it is a superhero film.
What did I miss?
From what I can tell, it is being coded and marketed that way.
It can be both.
There is a sub-faction of toolbags who can't stand to see non-white CIS male leads succeed, thinking the world is some sort of zero-sum game in which the presence of a non-white CIS male lead somehow directly devalues their existence as white CIS males. feth 'em.
As far as the bolded: just... wow. What if the film doesn't identify as a feminist film, does it then matter how it's "coded"?
As far as the red: there is also a sub-section of toolbags who see subjugation and ostracization where none exists, thinking that any criticism of a non-white CIS male lead is automatically every applicable -ism or -phobia that can peripherally be applicable because non-white CIS male characters are beyond reproach.
See how easy that was?
No, I only see how stupid it was.
It is an absolute fact that the film was deliberately marketed and coded as feminist. There was no need to add explicitly feminist verbiage above and beyond the actual footage, but Disney/Marvel did so. There was clear intent to do so, in order to get a response (presumably to pull the WW crowd).
As I have said, we can wait and see what the actual film does, but to ignore a clear political intent in the marketing is just stupid. Given Marvel history, they don't market a film at odds to the actual product. They didn't market Thor: Ragnarok as dark and gritty and then surprise the audience with a buddy comedy. They didn't market Infinity war as a slapstick yuk-fest. I doubt that they are marketing CM as a feminist film, and then going to release a flim that caters to the Red Pill crowd.
I think his point is more than there is in fact a pretty wide gap - chasm-like, even - between producing a full fat feminist allegory in superhero movie form, and "catering to the Red Pill crowd".
I agree they're playing up the "this is our Wonder Woman" angle in the marketing(the "With Her" text wasn't exactly subtle), but that doesn't(and hopefully won't) necessarily mean the film itself will be a ludicrous sledgehammer.
Yes, let’s not confuse “I have concerns about this film” with “I ammhoping my concerns all prove correct.” I think there are some red flags here but I will be glad to be wrong.
Lance845 wrote: As an aside, I don't think Marvel have ever actually said that she was the most powerful person in the marvel universe. I believe they said she was the most powerful hero we have seen so far. If the likes of Quasar or Adam Warlock were to arrive and be heroes I am sure they would at the very least rival her if not out class her.
CM isn't be anywhere near close to the most powerful person in the MCU. That honor currently sits with Thanos, wielder of the Infinity Gauntlet, master of the Infinity Stones.
If we are talking about heroes, Guardians 2 showed the cocoon of Adam Warlock, currently work in progress. Presumably, he survived the Snap.
If we are talking about heroes who we have seen fully-formed, when the Fox-Disney merger completes, the most powerful hero in the MCU will be the Silver Surfer, master of the Power Cosmic.
Wouldn’t Phoenix overpower Silver Surfer?
Full-on Phoenix isn't a hero, but an existential Cosmic threat a la Thanos or Glactus. I believe that Thanos would be more powerful than Phoenix, but it's hard to say - both villains
Phoenix would easily overpower Thanos and could go toe to toe with Galactus on a regular day. Phoenix in Jean Gray could tangle with Infinity and Eternity.
The most powerful person in the MCU isn't even Thanos with the Infinity Gauntlet. Since this is a Marvel Universe that would be The One Above All and even then, there are 2-3 tiers of people still above Thanos fully powered up.
It appears your knowledge of the MCU and Marvel Universe in general is as good as your stunning social analysis of this film. Good work, as always.
The MCU isn't the Matvel Universe, and it hasn't shown anyone more powerful than Thanos,.so it's obvious that your comprehension and ability to understand context is far below your presumption of my knowledge of thing Marvel.
Yeah, it’s important to note that so far in the movies Phoenix hasn’t been PHEONIX, but rather regular Jean Grey getting cranky, which is still strong, but not like PHEONIX levels strong.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The MCU isn't the Matvel Universe, and it hasn't shown anyone more powerful than Thanos,.so it's obvious that your comprehension and ability to understand context is far below your presumption of my knowledge of thing Marvel.
Dude...could you write that post any more condescendingly and like you were channeling Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons? I mean...pull back a little there.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The MCU isn't the Matvel Universe, and it hasn't shown anyone more powerful than Thanos,.so it's obvious that your comprehension and ability to understand context is far below your presumption of my knowledge of thing Marvel.
Dude...could you write that post any more condescendingly
No, though I did try. Dude was being a dick, so I replied accordingly.
AduroT wrote: Yeah, it’s important to note that so far in the movies Phoenix hasn’t been PHEONIX, but rather regular Jean Grey getting cranky, which is still strong, but not like PHEONIX levels strong.
Yeah, its also important to note that we were talking about the most powerful heroes in the marvel universe, which thanos, galactus, and the pheonix force along with all the universal entities like eternity and the one above all are not.
Trying to show boat your deep comic book knowlege about power levels of obscure characters is meaningless when they dont fit the criteria of the thing actually being discussed.
And to THAT end, the pheonix force couldnt do gak to galactus. Galactus is the sole survivor of the previous iteration of the universe who cannot be truely harmed by anything that is not the universe itself or the ultimate nulifier or his own power the power cosmic.
Likewise the inifity gems are actual fragments of a living entity that is the universe. The pheonix force is less than those gems. Anyone with the gauntlet could unmake the pheonix force if they desired. What impact that would have on reality is something else.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The MCU isn't the Matvel Universe, and it hasn't shown anyone more powerful than Thanos,.so it's obvious that your comprehension and ability to understand context is far below your presumption of my knowledge of thing Marvel.
Dude...could you write that post any more condescendingly
No, though I did try. Dude was being a dick, so I replied accordingly.
So how about both of you knock it off - you've both been around long enough to know better.
It's Christmas, so I'm going to leave it be - but, seriously, knock it back a notch, and let's all get along, m'kay?
JohnHwangDD wrote: The MCU isn't the Matvel Universe, and it hasn't shown anyone more powerful than Thanos,.so it's obvious that your comprehension and ability to understand context is far below your presumption of my knowledge of thing Marvel.
lol yes they have. They have a lot. Stan Lee is in every one of them doing something different every time.
Also, it has been stated that the MCU is in the Marvel Mutiverse. It is Earth-199999. Which means it is within the Marvel Universe and follows the same set standards as the others. I mean, they also show Celestials in the movies but I guess those do not count?
So I mean, you just keep writing that sounding as condescending as you can. DO NOT listen to those other people. It makes it funnier for me.
AduroT wrote: Yeah, it’s important to note that so far in the movies Phoenix hasn’t been PHEONIX, but rather regular Jean Grey getting cranky, which is still strong, but not like PHEONIX levels strong.
And to THAT end, the pheonix force couldnt do gak to galactus. Galactus is the sole survivor of the previous iteration of the universe who cannot be truely harmed by anything that is not the universe itself or the ultimate nulifier or his own power the power cosmic.
Likewise the inifity gems are actual fragments of a living entity that is the universe. The pheonix force is less than those gems. Anyone with the gauntlet could unmake the pheonix force if they desired. What impact that would have on reality is something else.
Nope! The Phoenix Force has actually fought against Infinity and Eternity toe to toe and not been defeated. Two beings more powerful than Galactus is.
Also, the Phoenix Force is a multiversal entity so it is not harmed by the infinity gauntlet of one universe. Same with The Beyonder.
Power Scales are so much fun. Everybody forgets who is a multiverse entity and who is not.
Those things are called multiversal singularities. What that means is that they exist across all universes and while each universes time line and events may be different they are all actually the same entity.
For example, Cybertron and Unicron and the first 13 are all multiversal singularities that exist in all Transformers cannons. They don't SIMPLY exist in all of them though. The Unicron that shows up in each is the SAME unicron that exists in each. His consciousness is multiverse spanning.
But that doesn't stop Unicron from being defeated in each iteration.
(Another good example is the Dark Tower of the Gunslinger series by Steven King. The Tower exists in all worlds simultaneously though not always in the form of a tower. It's not a multitude of towers. It is a single tower that exists across all universes.)
Except that each Marvel Universe has it's own living embodiment of it's universe. They are not multiversal singularities. They are each a separate and distinct entity. Each fragments into 7 gems (thats right there are 7. The 6 that make up the gauntlet and a 7th that is it's consciousness). And all that exists within it's bounds are subject to it's laws and whims.
Infinity, eternity, and the living tribunal along with the one above all do not actually exist within ANY of the universes (and are thus not multiversal singularities). They are beyond them and only ever touch down into them temporarily as they do what they do. The Phoenix force is powerful, yes. But also subject to the reality it exists within. Because it DOES exist within. And as far as I can find/remember not a multiversal singularity. Each Phoenix force is the sum total of all life potential within a given universe. And it draws on that cumulative life potential for all it's great power. While exceedingly powerful because the sum total of all life potential is nigh infinite, it's still a entity bound to the potential of that one universe. (and also subject to the gems that comprise it's universe).
The beyonder... shock and awe... is not from the universe. He is from beyond it. Which is why he is not effected by the gems. The gems can ONLY effect the universe they comprise. But they have complete control over all that exists because of them.
Lance845 wrote: Those things are called multiversal singularities. What that means is that they exist across all universes and while each universes time line and events may be different they are all actually the same entity.
For example, Cybertron and Unicron and the first 13 are all multiversal singularities that exist in all Transformers cannons. They don't SIMPLY exist in all of them though. The Unicron that shows up in each is the SAME unicron that exists in each. His consciousness is multiverse spanning.
But that doesn't stop Unicron from being defeated in each iteration.
(Another good example is the Dark Tower of the Gunslinger series by Steven King. The Tower exists in all worlds simultaneously though not always in the form of a tower. It's not a multitude of towers. It is a single tower that exists across all universes.)
Except that each Marvel Universe has it's own living embodiment of it's universe. They are not multiversal singularities. They are each a separate and distinct entity. Each fragments into 7 gems (thats right there are 7. The 6 that make up the gauntlet and a 7th that is it's consciousness). And all that exists within it's bounds are subject to it's laws and whims.
Infinity, eternity, and the living tribunal along with the one above all do not actually exist within ANY of the universes (and are thus not multiversal singularities). They are beyond them and only ever touch down into them temporarily as they do what they do. The Phoenix force is powerful, yes. But also subject to the reality it exists within. Because it DOES exist within. And as far as I can find/remember not a multiversal singularity. Each Phoenix force is the sum total of all life potential within a given universe. And it draws on that cumulative life potential for all it's great power. While exceedingly powerful because the sum total of all life potential is nigh infinite, it's still a entity bound to the potential of that one universe. (and also subject to the gems that comprise it's universe).
The beyonder... shock and awe... is not from the universe. He is from beyond it. Which is why he is not effected by the gems. The gems can ONLY effect the universe they comprise. But they have complete control over all that exists because of them.
Well, at least you got The Beyonder right, kinda. The Beyonder is from beyond in the same way that he IS the beyond. Only a portion of The Beyonder's power was trapped in our Universe. But since he exists within the Universe, he should be subject to the powers of the Infinity Stones according to this. Buuuuut, eeeeehhhhhhhh......
As far as the Abstracts and the Living Tribunal. They very much exist WITHIN the multiverse they are associated with. Note the Living Tribunal is murdered and both Galactus and Phoenix both physically fight them. There is also the whole thing that there are actually Multiversal Abstracts like Eternity, but we also have one of our own.
As far as the Phoenix Force, it's power is shown to fluctuate with the one currently using it, not the potential of life in the universe. That may be where it draws power, but the one wielding it is far more important.
The infinity gems power scale stops just above Odin and the Skyfathers and just below Galactus and the Phoenix Force. They are powerful and important but they do not beat abstracts like Life/Rebirth or Hunger/Entropy. Definitely do not come close to the top. It was noted that the Abstracts and up could have stopped Thanos at any time in the comics, but they didn't care. It was not an issue to them.
Dreadwinter wrote: Ah right. Lets not discuss the movie or the universe.
Back to how this is a FEMINIST PROPOGANDA MACHINE!
My apologies. Continue.
You joke, but the "one of that kind of feminist" person in my life regaled me today with their interpretation of the trailer and the story it obviously(apparently) implies - the Kree are the Patriarchy, who repress and enslave Danvers with brainwashing(just like all women who don't share her own exact opinions), and her regaining her memories and becoming Captain Marvel is an allegory for women throwing off the shackles of male oppression and discovering their true power within. There was more, but I was too busy focusing on preventing my eyes from glazing over as I did the smile & nod routine to hear it.
Sometimes I like to imagine that some things just are what they are at face value. If Carol Danvers was instead James Denvers, and exactly the same thing happened to him as what makes Carol into Captain Marvel....does that still make the Kree the patriarchy keeping, well, a guy....down? What is it called if he finds his true memories, thus throwing off the shackles of oppression?
I'd personally prefer to approach this movie imagining that Captain Marvel could be either gender and it would be 90% the same, barring some traditionally female-specific situations just for spice.
It would be like saying Shuri being a female in BP was a feminist agenda, when it's just fun to watch a plucky little sister talk to her brother like he's a meathead.
Hate to be “that guy” considering I’m one of the people that frequently blurs the line of what is acceptable, but less of the feminist stuff please, that’s politics and we’re not supposed to do that here anymore.
Formosa wrote: Hate to be “that guy” considering I’m one of the people that frequently blurs the line of what is acceptable, but less of the feminist stuff please, that’s politics and we’re not supposed to do that here anymore.
I think you're being pretty optimistic if you don't think this thread will be eventually locked like virtually every other thread that even tangentially touches on stuff like this.
Formosa wrote: Hate to be “that guy” considering I’m one of the people that frequently blurs the line of what is acceptable, but less of the feminist stuff please, that’s politics and we’re not supposed to do that here anymore.
I think you're being pretty optimistic if you don't think this thread will be eventually locked like virtually every other thread that even tangentially touches on stuff like this.
Im trying mate, normally I would jump in with both feet but it would be nice to discuss the movie, I was actually enjoying the discussion between the nerd off above, somehow the one above all had skipped me and ive been reading marvel comics for 20 years ???
I was kinda enjoying the comic nerd-off there a bit...
I'm late, but I thought a "Phoenix" and "Dark Phoenix" were different entities (er...different manifestations?), in that Jean Grey was in control of her powers - whereas, THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS sentient, the base urges, was the Dark Phoenix overcoming Grey's consciousness. Did I goober that up?
I'm really digging the vibe of Captain Marvel and I don't really get this "feminist" flavoring others are sensing. This is definitely Marvel's "hey, we have a WW-like chick over here too" flick...
whembly wrote: I was kinda enjoying the comic nerd-off there a bit...
I'm late, but I thought a "Phoenix" and "Dark Phoenix" were different entities (er...different manifestations?), in that Jean Grey was in control of her powers - whereas, THE NATURAL ORDER OF THINGS sentient, the base urges, was the Dark Phoenix overcoming Grey's consciousness. Did I goober that up?
I'm really digging the vibe of Captain Marvel and I don't really get this "feminist" flavoring others are sensing. This is definitely Marvel's "hey, we have a WW-like chick over here too" flick...
I think that's really the thing, Marvel's realizing they dropped the ball by not having one already going. Now they are in a bit of "tryhard" mode. Can't blame them, but it's already starting the gak storm.
Just Tony wrote: I think that's really the thing, Marvel's realizing they dropped the ball by not having one already going. Now they are in a bit of "tryhard" mode. Can't blame them, but it's already starting the gak storm.
People had been demanding a Black Widow movie ever since Natasha appeared in IM2, and never got it. Being Cap's support in TWS was small consolation. Then DC did a good job with WW, and that kinda changed things up. Doing halfsies as Ant-Man and the Wasp doesn't come close.
It's a really big failing on Marvel's part, given their otherwise good push to add diversity to the otherwise CIS white male led films like IM, Hulk, Thor, Guardians, Ant-Man & Dr. Strange.. Oh, wait, everything except Black Panther.
So yeah, they're obviously behind and need to catch up. While they're good at making a movie that just happens to have a superhero, that superhero can just happen to be someone who isn't a CIS white male.
I think in large part its due to the roster in comics. Its almost all cis white men. And unlike dc marvel went into this with a plan. The widow movie never really fit for pushing the infinity war narrative forward. Coupled with the fact that it wasnt until half way through phase 2/end of phase 2 that kevin fiege got disney to get ike pearlmutter out of the movie side of it. Ike being notoriously horrible about black and female characters.
I think phase 4 will see some major diversity now that this initial story plan is done and they are free of ikes garbage.
Genoside07 wrote: At the end of the day I just want this to be a good movie, with a good story.. No political messages shoe horned in..
Also I have collected comics for years .. Captain Marvel for me will always be Monica Rambeau..
It's a film coming out in 2019 by the studio that brought us Black Panther. I'll very surprised if something isn't shoehorned in. IMO, BP had some very groan worthy moments
Spoiler:
All things colonizers and the kids in Oakland at the end talking about jacking rims off BP's ship...really?
but it didn't detract from the overall film to the point where it was unwatchable or even bad.
Genoside07 wrote: At the end of the day I just want this to be a good movie, with a good story.. No political messages shoe horned in..
Also I have collected comics for years .. Captain Marvel for me will always be Monica Rambeau..
It's a film coming out in 2019 by the studio that brought us Black Panther. I'll very surprised if something isn't shoehorned in. IMO, BP had some very groan worthy moments
Spoiler:
All things colonizers and the kids in Oakland at the end talking about jacking rims off BP's ship...really?
but it didn't detract from the overall film to the point where it was unwatchable or even bad.
Spoiler:
To be fair, "colonisers" was only used, to my recollection, by Shuri as a joke, and by Killmonger, who's philosophy the film seems pretty firmly against. It's not like they were actually advocating the whole "all white folk are baddies" thing.
And it makes perfect sense for a reclusive nation whos vast majority of their population never leave their hyper protected boarders on a continent with Africas history to feel like the rest of the world is pretty fethed.
Lance845 wrote: I dunno. Too much smiling. Her acting was all wooden or something. / sarcasm
Yeah, all those dumbasses criticizing something based on the available information, when everyone knows the only sensible response to marketing is blind hype - I mean, the blind hype was somewhat vindicated this time, weeks later, so that must mean it always is right? Heh heh, goteem.
Available information is not accurate. There is now over 10 years of history that can be factored into it along with the really good casts previous career. We have seen initial Marvel trailers look one way and subsequent look another and the final film have a vibe all it's own.
It is a dumbass thing to look at the first drama heavy trailer and say something like "Why isn't she smiling?"
You (the royal you) are not looking at all the available information.
One shouldn't go overboard with trailer analysis, for sure. But trailers are created to elicit reactions, so it's fair to share them.
Personally, I'm still underwhelmed, just because so far it feels like most Marvel solo intro films. "Hard-bitten bad-a** warrior crashes on Earth and rediscovers her humanity" seems like only a slightly reformulated Stark/Strange/etc. "self-centered jerk has crisis and discovers the meaning of heroism" story. *shrug*
To get me in the theater for a Marvel film these days, it's gotta be something different, or something big. This doesn't feel like either, no matter how much they try to tell us that it IS something different and big. Just saying it doesn't make it so.
Im fine with peoples thoughts and feelings about the trailer. I just think its bizarre to have critiques about the number of smiles in a movie at least partially about a war.
Nobody asks why tony wasnt smiling in the im3 trailer or cap in civil war. Your opinions are good to hear Gorgon. But those kinds of opinions are nonsense.
Lance845 wrote: Im fine with peoples thoughts and feelings about the trailer. I just think its bizarre to have critiques about the number of smiles in a movie at least partially about a war.
Nobody asks why tony wasnt smiling in the im3 trailer or cap in civil war. Your opinions are good to hear Gorgon. But those kinds of opinions are nonsense.
yep the smile thing is nonsense.
Still think she was miscast though, she lacks personality and seems very boring, I hope she surprises me though, this is pretty much the same thing I thought with Batfleck, and while he did an ok job, he was still the wrong choice for the role.
It's been my experience that casting is pretty low on the list of things that go wrong on a film and when it does, its almost always when they go for a "hot" name for the role over anything else. It wasn't that long ago that the internet was awash in comments about how impossible it was for Gal Gadot to pull off Wonder Woman. More often than not its the castings that fans are exited for that actually fail miserably.
LunarSol wrote: It's been my experience that casting is pretty low on the list of things that go wrong on a film and when it does, its almost always when they go for a "hot" name for the role over anything else
Did you watch Valerian? I say that both leads were badly miscast.
I think Brie Larson was a fine choice for Captain Marvel, even if she's no Mar-Vell...
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I'm saying its rapidly dropped down my list of reasons why a movie fails behind things like directing, studio tampering, etc.
Sure, hence Valerian as the example. The movie had great visuals from a lavish budget, without obvious studio meddling. Besson can certainly direct. But the leads could have been cast better, particularly the titular Valerian.
Still think she was miscast though, she lacks personality and seems very boring
Isn't this the same thing?
Nope, the smile thing is just nitpicking, lacking personality and being boring is a critique of brie larson as an actress, every film i have seen her in she has the same issue, but lets see if she has the same problem in this movie, like i said before ben afleck surprised me, but still think he was a bad choice.
LunarSol wrote: It's been my experience that casting is pretty low on the list of things that go wrong on a film and when it does, its almost always when they go for a "hot" name for the role over anything else
Did you watch Valerian? I say that both leads were badly miscast.
I think Brie Larson was a fine choice for Captain Marvel, even if she's no Mar-Vell...
I didn't think Cara Delevingne was especially great, nor especially poor. She did... adequately.
But hoo boy, Dane DeHaan just had absolutely zero screen presence, none. No charisma whatsoever. The whole subplot about her wanting to marry him seems bizarre because his appeal seemed nonexistent.
I thought he was OK in Chronicle so maybe it was just a one-off, but looking through his IMDB page he's been in a few movies I've seen and I don't remember him in any of them so... maybe not.
LunarSol wrote: It's been my experience that casting is pretty low on the list of things that go wrong on a film and when it does, its almost always when they go for a "hot" name for the role over anything else
Did you watch Valerian? I say that both leads were badly miscast..
I didn't think Cara Delevingne was especially great, nor especially poor. She did... adequately.
But hoo boy, Dane DeHaan just had absolutely zero screen presence, none. No charisma whatsoever. The whole subplot about her wanting to marry him seems bizarre because his appeal seemed nonexistent.
I thought he was OK in Chronicle so maybe it was just a one-off, but looking through his IMDB page he's been in a few movies I've seen and I don't remember him in any of them so... maybe not.
The girl was passable, very pretty (like in Suicide Squad), but nothing special. Not like Milla as Leeloo.
The kid was terrible, zero edge, no charisma. Not believable at all, neither as an action star, nor as a love interest, nor as a philanderer. So far from Willis as Dallas.
Which is too bad, because you get such a glorius opening montage...
Lance845 wrote: Im fine with peoples thoughts and feelings about the trailer. I just think its bizarre to have critiques about the number of smiles in a movie at least partially about a war.
Nobody asks why tony wasnt smiling in the im3 trailer or cap in civil war. Your opinions are good to hear Gorgon. But those kinds of opinions are nonsense.
yep the smile thing is nonsense.
Still think she was miscast though, she lacks personality and seems very boring, I hope she surprises me though, this is pretty much the same thing I thought with Batfleck, and while he did an ok job, he was still the wrong choice for the role.
It could be argued that critiquing a lack of smiling is simple misogyny as women in modern western society are always expected to smile and be happy no matter the circumstances.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Which is too bad, because you get such a glorius opening montage...
... and it's basically all downhill from there.
Yes. With this we should probably end this digression, but I was very excited for this movie, and I strongly agree, the opening was amazing. That was about all that was amazing, though.
...an interview with directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck in which they were asked about what sort of tone fans should expect from the Marvel Studios movie. Quizzed on where it lands between the darker nature of Avengers: Infinity War and the goofy Ant-Man and The Wasp, the filmmakers explained that it's very much its own thing.
"We approached this movie as being, at the heart of it, this mystery of self-identity for Captain Marvel," Anna explained. "It has a lot of playfulness in it, and that kind of buddy-cop vibe that Captain Marvel has with the Nick Fury character was really an important touchstone for us."
"Yeah," Ryan agreed. "Like the '80s and '90s buddy-cop movies, like 48 Hrs. or Lethal Weapon. We have some of that. Those movies, even the serious ones, they have a really terrific sense of humor, and we wanted to maintain that as well."
The latest trailer does certainly seem to show this...
Again ... never under estimate Disney... Good or bad....
Spoiler:
But apparently the Captain marvel toy line will include Grey Gargoyle .. Not sure if he is in the movie but
We are starting to see members of the masters of evil show up so maybe a story line there also...
Every time they release the toy line batches they include comic versions and comic characters that are not in the movies. Winter Soldiers batch of figures included serpent society members. I would pay that no mind.
Lance845 wrote: Every time they release the toy line batches they include comic versions and comic characters that are not in the movies. Winter Soldiers batch of figures included serpent society members. I would pay that no mind.
The toy lines to watch out for for spoilers are the funko pops. Those will ruin you.
Personally, I'm still underwhelmed, just because so far it feels like most Marvel solo intro films. "Hard-bitten bad-a** warrior crashes on Earth and rediscovers her humanity" seems like only a slightly reformulated Stark/Strange/etc. "self-centered jerk has crisis and discovers the meaning of heroism" story. *shrug*
My initial thought is it's rather the opposite; Iron Man, Captain America and Doctor Strange all had an ordinary person learn what it takes to become a hero. In this, it looks like the hero needs to remember what being a person is.
That's my thought. Brainwashed super soldier has to learn to relate to normal humans, and in doing so she finds out how bad she was brainwashed and used, so cuts ties to stick with the humans.
AegisGrimm wrote: That's my thought. Brainwashed super soldier has to learn to relate to normal humans, and in doing so she finds out how bad she was brainwashed and used, so cuts ties to stick with the humans.
I assume it ends with her somehow back in space. Returning to the Kree to find a better way or some other thing. On the way back to earth to respond to Fury's page, she'll run across Tony adrift in space to put her in the plot of Endgame proper.
So if Brie Larson is a miscast Captain Marvel, who would be a good pick for Carol Danvers? And I do agree that Brie Larson is one of the blandest actors in Hollywood. I don't understand her appeal at all.
I think Emily Blunt or Charlize Theron would have crushed it. They've both proven that they can play military personnel and/or bad asses. Larson just doesn't fit at all. There's like a laundry list I would've picked before her.
Brie Larson might be just fine - we won't know until we watch the movie. Charlize is kinda old for the role? Sometimes better to just pick someone new.
Alpharius wrote: Emily Blunt probably would have been awesome, BUT, I'm with J.H.D.D. - I'm going to wait to see how Brie does before passing judgement!
I thought Brie was great in Kong: Skull Island, so I'm confident in her capabilities here.
trexmeyer wrote: So if Brie Larson is a miscast Captain Marvel, who would be a good pick for Carol Danvers? And I do agree that Brie Larson is one of the blandest actors in Hollywood. I don't understand her appeal at all.
I think Emily Blunt or Charlize Theron would have crushed it. They've both proven that they can play military personnel and/or bad asses. Larson just doesn't fit at all. There's like a laundry list I would've picked before her.
Hell yes to both of those, Charlize theron would have totally smashed it, she can do action and i dont care if she is "too old" for the part, she can act and i would have loved to see an older captain marvel rather than one of the now 8 rebooted comic versions, kinda like older peter parker in spiderverse.
Emilty Blunt... well edge of tomorrow shows she would be excellent for captain marvel too, she made that film for me.
trexmeyer wrote: So if Brie Larson is a miscast Captain Marvel, who would be a good pick for Carol Danvers? And I do agree that Brie Larson is one of the blandest actors in Hollywood. I don't understand her appeal at all.
I think Emily Blunt or Charlize Theron would have crushed it. They've both proven that they can play military personnel and/or bad asses. Larson just doesn't fit at all. There's like a laundry list I would've picked before her.
Hell yes to both of those, Charlize theron would have totally smashed it, she can do action and i dont care if she is "too old" for the part, she can act and i would have loved to see an older captain marvel rather than one of the now 8 rebooted comic versions, kinda like older peter parker in spiderverse.
Emilty Blunt... well edge of tomorrow shows she would be excellent for captain marvel too, she made that film for me.
You will get a chance to see an older carol danvers. 10 years from now when the MCU is still running. There is no point in casting old in the intro movie for a ongoing universe. Good Job with your old Batman DC.
trexmeyer wrote: I think Emily Blunt or Charlize Theron would have crushed it
Hell yes to both of those, Charlize theron would have totally smashed it, she can do action and i dont care if she is "too old" for the part,
You will get a chance to see an older carol danvers. 10 years from now when the MCU is still running. There is no point in casting old in the intro movie for a ongoing universe. Good Job with your old Batman DC.
Exactly. RDJ has done Iron Man for a full decade! Also SLJ as Nick Fury. You need a younger person simply for the duration of the franchise, someone who can potentially do a half dozen films over a decade.
Given how largely irrelevant and non-present she was for almost all of the film, I certainly wouldn't consider Blanchett a 'lead role' or a 'lead villain.'
She was a B-plot and fairly contrived reason to get Thor to Junkworld sans Mew-mew, and later to nuke Asgard to get the Asgardians into space to get murdered by Thanos
Voss wrote: Given how largely irrelevant and non-present she was for almost all of the film, I certainly wouldn't consider Blanchett a 'lead role' or a 'lead villain.'
She was a B-plot and fairly contrived reason to get Thor to Junkworld sans Mew-mew, and later to nuke Asgard to get the Asgardians into space to get murdered by Thanos
She qas, in fact, the driving force of the entire movie. She was everyones motivations. Everyones antagonist. The whole plot. Largely irrelevant sounds like you were watching a different movie.
trexmeyer wrote: So if Brie Larson is a miscast Captain Marvel, who would be a good pick for Carol Danvers? And I do agree that Brie Larson is one of the blandest actors in Hollywood. I don't understand her appeal at all.
I think Emily Blunt or Charlize Theron would have crushed it. They've both proven that they can play military personnel and/or bad asses. Larson just doesn't fit at all. There's like a laundry list I would've picked before her.
Hell yes to both of those, Charlize theron would have totally smashed it, she can do action and i dont care if she is "too old" for the part, she can act and i would have loved to see an older captain marvel rather than one of the now 8 rebooted comic versions, kinda like older peter parker in spiderverse.
Emilty Blunt... well edge of tomorrow shows she would be excellent for captain marvel too, she made that film for me.
You will get a chance to see an older carol danvers. 10 years from now when the MCU is still running. There is no point in casting old in the intro movie for a ongoing universe. Good Job with your old Batman DC.
god no, they will replace Brie larson long before that, I give her 2/3 movies, if the studio can keep her in check and off twitter, I give her longer.
Batfleck is leaving... or is he, who knows with DC at the moment, at least we now have 2 good movies in the DCEU, 2 more and they will equal marvel!
Voss wrote: Given how largely irrelevant and non-present she was for almost all of the film, I certainly wouldn't consider Blanchett a 'lead role' or a 'lead villain.'
She was a B-plot and fairly contrived reason to get Thor to Junkworld sans Mew-mew, and later to nuke Asgard to get the Asgardians into space to get murdered by Thanos
She qas, in fact, the driving force of the entire movie. She was everyones motivations. Everyones antagonist. The whole plot. Largely irrelevant sounds like you were watching a different movie.
Yep. I was watching a -buddy comedy/family finding common ground- story on Junkworld, with a cameo lead in with dr strange, and a strange post climax where Ragnarok just sort of inevitably happened because of the script demands of infinity war, and a bunch of side characters were tossed under a bus in favor of wacky rock revolutionary and his slug sidekick/pet.
She certainly wasn't 'everyone's' anything. She mattered to Thor and Heimdall (who barely mattered in this film) and somewhat (and unconvincingly) to Valkyrie, and vaguely to Loki (and only because he was reconnecting to Thor, somewhat). No one else noticed or cared, except the assortment of out of nowhere Asgardians peasants doomed to die, but they were background, not characters.
Odds are pretty good that infinity 2 will ultimately reset much or all this anyway, because comics.
I never was a big fan of Marvel character and I actually almost nothing about Captain Marvel, but is her character and stories hard to pull off? Is she the kind off character that requires a wide range of acting skill? I mean, Captain America is a fairly easy character to both cast and play. He is a fairly archetypical hero with a good heart and a good soldier attitude. Most average actors can pull this off fairly well and it's relatively easy to make a film with those types of characters (there is so many afterall). Iron Man for example is more complex. He is supposed to be an arrogant, insufferable piece of gak, but still loveable and funny, thus a good actor and scenario needs a good balance of both elements and a certain charisma for it to look natural and credible. So I guess my question isn't if Larson is a good actress or not, but if she's simply good enough.
He wasnt funny until robert downie jr made him so. Stark as a character has always been very stoic. And often tragic (alcoholism). Not a catchy one liners and whatever.
Also captain america on the surface is just big heart and good soldier. But thats boring and chris evans is anything but. Cap done right is very deep and the things he fights for are more complex then simple being a good soldier. His best moments are civil war style moments where he wrangles these complex situations in ways that find that small narrow right path forwardeven when everyone else is tearing it down.
Carol has had a spot light put on her in the last decade or so even though shes been around since the 60s. Shes more of the soldier you think cap is. Shes more stubborn then he is. But shes less often the moral champion he is. Cap is the moral compass of the marvel universe. If cap says what you are doing is wrong it probably is. Carol finds the direct and definitive solution to the problem on front of her and makes it not a problem anymore. She gets a mission and she completes the objective. The moral fall out of that can be dealt with after.
What she is in the mcu isnt necessarily who she is in the comics. Like tony stark its mutable since shes a character most people know nothing about. Her depth and complexity can come from her rich (and often stupid) comics history or just some gak they make up to get past the stupid comic gak.
trexmeyer wrote: So if Brie Larson is a miscast Captain Marvel, who would be a good pick for Carol Danvers? And I do agree that Brie Larson is one of the blandest actors in Hollywood. I don't understand her appeal at all.
I think Emily Blunt or Charlize Theron would have crushed it. They've both proven that they can play military personnel and/or bad asses. Larson just doesn't fit at all. There's like a laundry list I would've picked before her.
Hell yes to both of those, Charlize theron would have totally smashed it, she can do action and i dont care if she is "too old" for the part, she can act and i would have loved to see an older captain marvel rather than one of the now 8 rebooted comic versions, kinda like older peter parker in spiderverse.
Emilty Blunt... well edge of tomorrow shows she would be excellent for captain marvel too, she made that film for me.
The trick to using an older actor for a new character is... well, how long will she be ABLE to do this sort of movie? The MCU is working on story arcs that are a decade long at a time here. Will she still be available and able to play Captain Marvel for that long or longer?
Lance845 wrote: Your wrong about iron man. He wasnt funny until robert downie jr made him so. Stark as a character has always been very stoic. And often tragic (alcoholism). Not a catchy one liners and whatever.
Also captain america on the surface is just big heart and good soldier. But thats boring and chris evans is anything but. Cap done right is very deep and the things he fights for are more complex then simple being a good soldier. His best moments are civil war style moments where he wrangles these complex situations in ways that find that small narrow right path forwardeven when everyone else is tearing it down.
Agree. Iron Man wasn't clever until RDJ took the role. Spider Man was making the jokes.
Captain America is good when he's not secretly a Nazi, because that's a betrayal of everything about the character.
Ouze wrote: Isn't Brie Larson the first time an Academy Award winning actor/actress has been cast as the lead in the MCU?
List of Academy Award winners for Best Actor/Actress or Best Supporting Actor/Actress other than Brie Larson
Spoiler:
Benicio del Toro: Best Supporting Actor 2000, also 1 additional nomination in Supporting Category
Jeff Bridges: Best Actor 2009, two nominations
Anthony Hopkins: Best Actor 1992, 3 additional nominations
Forest Whitaker: Best Actor 2006
Tommy Lee Jones: Best Supporting Actor 1993, multiple nominations for Best Actor/Best Supporting Actor
Michael Douglas: Best Actor 1988
Ben Kingsley: Best Actor 1982
Cate Blanchett: Best Supporting Actress 2004, 2 additional nominations in same category. Best Actress 2014, 3 additional nominations in same category.
Gwyneth Paltrow: Best Actress 1998.
Jennifer Connelly: Best Supporting Actress 2002
Tilda Swinton: Best Supporting Actress 2007
Natalie Portman: Best Actress 2010, 1 nomination Best Supporting Actress, 1 additional nomination best Actress.
Notable nominations only
Spoiler:
Robert Downing Jr: 1 each for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor
Michael Keaton: 1 for Best Actor
Mark Ruffalo: 4 for Best Supporting Actor
Mickey Rourke: 1 for Best Actor
Benedict Cumberbatch: 1 for Best Supporting Actor
Don Cheadle: 1 for Best Actor
Bradley Cooper: 2 Best Actor, 1 Best Support Actor
Angela Bassett: 1 Best Actress
Edward Norton (lol): 1 Best Actor, 2 Best Supporting Actor
Glenn Close: 3 for both Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress
Chiwetel Ejiofor: 1 for Best Actor
Samuel L. Jackson: 1 for Best Supporting Actor
Robert Redford: 1 for Best Actor (Best Director Win)
Michelle Pfeiffer: 1 Best Actress, 2 Best Supporting Actress
Laurence Fishburne: 1 Best Actor
Rachel McAdams: 1 Best Actress
So technically, no 'lead' has a win yet, but it's not as if she's the most decorated or respected actor/actress to appear in the MCU or lead a film.
Ouze wrote: Isn't Brie Larson the first time an Academy Award winning actor/actress has been cast as the lead in the MCU?
List of Academy Award winners for Best Actor/Actress or Best Supporting Actor/Actress other than Brie Larson
Spoiler:
Benicio del Toro: Best Supporting Actor 2000, also 1 additional nomination in Supporting Category
Jeff Bridges: Best Actor 2009, two nominations
Anthony Hopkins: Best Actor 1992, 3 additional nominations
Forest Whitaker: Best Actor 2006
Tommy Lee Jones: Best Supporting Actor 1993, multiple nominations for Best Actor/Best Supporting Actor
Michael Douglas: Best Actor 1988
Ben Kingsley: Best Actor 1982
Cate Blanchett: Best Supporting Actress 2004, 2 additional nominations in same category. Best Actress 2014, 3 additional nominations in same category.
Gwyneth Paltrow: Best Actress 1998.
Jennifer Connelly: Best Supporting Actress 2002
Tilda Swinton: Best Supporting Actress 2007
Natalie Portman: Best Actress 2010, 1 nomination Best Supporting Actress, 1 additional nomination best Actress.
Notable nominations only
Spoiler:
Robert Downing Jr: 1 each for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor
Michael Keaton: 1 for Best Actor
Mark Ruffalo: 4 for Best Supporting Actor
Mickey Rourke: 1 for Best Actor
Benedict Cumberbatch: 1 for Best Supporting Actor
Don Cheadle: 1 for Best Actor
Bradley Cooper: 2 Best Actor, 1 Best Support Actor
Angela Bassett: 1 Best Actress
Edward Norton (lol): 1 Best Actor, 2 Best Supporting Actor
Glenn Close: 3 for both Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress
Chiwetel Ejiofor: 1 for Best Actor
Samuel L. Jackson: 1 for Best Supporting Actor
Robert Redford: 1 for Best Actor (Best Director Win)
Michelle Pfeiffer: 1 Best Actress, 2 Best Supporting Actress
Laurence Fishburne: 1 Best Actor
Rachel McAdams: 1 Best Actress
So technically, no 'lead' has a win yet, but it's not as if she's the most decorated or respected actor/actress to appear in the MCU or lead a film.
I would agree she's not the most respected actor/actress in the MCU, but that also wasn't the argument I made.
In terms of acting ability regardless of award I think it's tough to beat Anthony Hopkins, Glenn Close, Michael Keaton, Ben Kingsley, and Tilda Swinton, and the other heavyweights they've snagged in non-leads. My favorite is still Cate Blanchett though!
A lot of actors signed on to the MCU thinking they were getting their shot at pulling off the next Heath Ledger Joker and found themselves extremely disappointed. Cate Blanchett is one of the few to really commit to the kind of villain the MCU has been reliant on.
LunarSol wrote: A lot of actors signed on to the MCU thinking they were getting their shot at pulling off the next Heath Ledger Joker and found themselves extremely disappointed. Cate Blanchett is one of the few to really commit to the kind of villain the MCU has been reliant on.
If you don't die immediately, you can't be the next Heath Ledger, whose performance is only "good" because of he died. To me, it was completely blah.
LunarSol wrote: A lot of actors signed on to the MCU thinking they were getting their shot at pulling off the next Heath Ledger Joker and found themselves extremely disappointed. Cate Blanchett is one of the few to really commit to the kind of villain the MCU has been reliant on.
If you don't die immediately, you can't be the next Heath Ledger, whose performance is only "good" because of he died. To me, it was completely blah.
3rd or 4th best joker and only got an oscar because he died, otherwise hollywood would just do what it always does and snub comic book films/fantasy and sci fi, not such much an issue these days.
LunarSol wrote: A lot of actors signed on to the MCU thinking they were getting their shot at pulling off the next Heath Ledger Joker and found themselves extremely disappointed. Cate Blanchett is one of the few to really commit to the kind of villain the MCU has been reliant on.
If you don't die immediately, you can't be the next Heath Ledger, whose performance is only "good" because of he died. To me, it was completely blah.
If he hadn't died we'd regard his Joker with about as much reverence as we do Jared Leto's Joker, which is to say none at all.
We got a lot of great joker things from Ledger that nobody else managed to put on screen thus far.
1) He had subtle cruel humor in his plans. He blocks the road by lighting a fire truck on fire. Thus making it a fire-truck.
He crosses out the S in slaughter on the truck hes in so it says laughter. He is exactly the person who would find laughter in slaughter.
2) His origin is a mystery. None of this Jack Napier gak. Nobody knows who he is or where he came from.
3) His plans manipulate everyone around him. From the bank heist to the crime familys to dent. There was no point in that movie where he wasn't pulling thread after thread to get to batman. He didn't care about the money. He needed the criminals angry and desperate.
Leto is a growling weirdo who doesn't seem to have any actual goals. Granted we didn't see much. But what we saw wasn't good.
Nicholson's plan was weird cartoony nonsense. He couldn't manipulate his way out of a paper bag. He had goons simply because the plot required him to have goons.
Elbows wrote: I don't think you'll find many people who agree with your opinion (keep in mind, it's indeed your opinion).
I never understood why so many people thought Ledger's performance as the Joker was so great. I'll grant you he came across completely insane, but he lacked the zany humor that is what distinguishes the Joker for a random psychopath.
But I admit, a lot of people did seem to like it for some reason.
Formosa wrote: 3rd or 4th best joker and only got an oscar because he died
I just read a thread where someone compared "asking people why they complain about games they don't play" to soviet-style treatment of dissidents, and damned if that wasn't only the second most outlandish thing I saw on here today.
He didn’t deserve an Oscar for that role in a climate that traditionally ignored sci fi, fantasy and comic book movies, in the context of the times it seemed like pure pandering, bare in mind Hollywood is behind the times and traditionally out of touch with the general public, these days it’s different, if dark knight came out now then it’s likely he would have received a nomination (had he not died) and not won the Oscar as comic book movies have become mainstream.
As for the snubbing of sci fi, fantasy and comic movies, some of the biggest directors and producers over the years have come out and directly stated it, even some on the Oscar committies have stated that “such low brow movies are not what the oscars are for”
@ Lance: No offence, but to me your list reads more like directorial decisions, rather than anything Ledger (who I admittedly like) would have had influence over? Or do I need to go Wiki something?
Really, I thought he was good, but just a bit too extrovert ... Also, no comparisons implied. I'm talking about Ledger only.
We got a lot of great joker things from Ledger that nobody else managed to put on screen thus far.
1) He had subtle cruel humor in his plans. He blocks the road by lighting a fire truck on fire. Thus making it a fire-truck.
He crosses out the S in slaughter on the truck hes in so it says laughter. He is exactly the person who would find laughter in slaughter.
2) His origin is a mystery. None of this Jack Napier gak. Nobody knows who he is or where he came from.
3) His plans manipulate everyone around him. From the bank heist to the crime familys to dent. There was no point in that movie where he wasn't pulling thread after thread to get to batman. He didn't care about the money. He needed the criminals angry and desperate.
Leto is a growling weirdo who doesn't seem to have any actual goals. Granted we didn't see much. But what we saw wasn't good.
Nicholson's plan was weird cartoony nonsense. He couldn't manipulate his way out of a paper bag. He had goons simply because the plot required him to have goons.
I believe that you have completely failed to distinguish the actor from the writer.
Everything you mention as good about Ledger came from the writer's room, none of that was from his performance as an actor. Any other actor could have played the Joker to do those things. Nicholson could have just as easily lit a fire truck on fire, or crossed out an S; they could have omitted his origin, but the writers wanted parallelism for comparison and contrast. The acting part is about how he plays it, not the storytelling.
Leto was awful, with an absolute lock on "worst Joker". But he actually was acting. Just doing a really bad job of it, because it wasn't believable at all. Of course, suspension of disbelief was a huge problem for SS, due to poor writing and poor directing.
Nicholson's plan wasn't acting, though, it was writing. As the first realistic Joker (recall that it followed Romero's pure camp TV version), it was excellent. The biggest flaw in Burton's version was having to appease Warner by adding a song-and-dance number.
Im not missing what was the writer and what was the actor.
What i am saying is ledgers joker is the best joker we have seen live action. Ledger in no way did a bad job with the writing and directing he was given. He did a good job with it and gave us the best version so far.
Deserves an award? Probably not. But the acadamy awards are nonsense anyway so what difference does that make? We all know they are not impartial or even practical in who wins what. So why does anyone care who won what or didnt?
I was simply saying when people talk up ledgers joker they are talking up that JOKER. Not necessarily ledger, but the character we got.
Elbows wrote: I don't think you'll find many people who agree with your opinion (keep in mind, it's indeed your opinion).
I never understood why so many people thought Ledger's performance as the Joker was so great. I'll grant you he came across completely insane, but he lacked the zany humor that is what distinguishes the Joker for a random psychopath.
But I admit, a lot of people did seem to like it for some reason.
Yeah, for some reason they really liked Ledger's performance of a completely insane psychopath. The "zany humor" of the joker was always second to the fact that he is a cold hearted murderer who would shoot anybody in the face to cause a little chaos.
But for some reason people see a clown suit and go "HES GOTTA BE FUNNY"
Ouze wrote: I just read a thread where someone compared "asking people why they complain about games they don't play" to soviet-style treatment of dissidents, and damned if that wasn't only the second most outlandish thing I saw on here today.
I know right? Ledger's Joker was phenomenal and that movie was a masterpiece.
squidhills wrote: I think we can all agree that: Mark Hamill's Joker > everyone else's Joker, right?
Been through this before. The fact is, the Joker has been treated many different ways in the source material -- to point where creators like Grant Morrison and Geoff Johns addressed it in different ways. So saying this or that performance "is" or "isn't" the Joker is actually very silly.
For my money, Ledger's *performance* was the best we've seen in live action so far. He absolutely disappeared into the part. Clearly Nicholson had a lot of fun with the role, but I wouldn't call it one of his career-best performances. At all.
This is also where Joaquin Phoenix says, 'hold my beer.'
Alpharius wrote: ...is he at the theater watching Captain Marvel with us when he says that?
Just under two months until we can finally see for ourselves!
And then only about a month after that before Captain Marvel hits the screen again!
And then only a few weeks after that before Captain Marvel hits the screen again!
There, or under your bed.
Spoiler:
Back on topic, it certainly is interesting that we have feature films for both Marvel's and DC's Captain Marvel coming for the first time ever, and they're releasing within weeks of one another.
Formosa wrote: He didn’t deserve an Oscar for that role in a climate that traditionally ignored sci fi, fantasy and comic book movies, in the context of the times it seemed like pure pandering, bare in mind Hollywood is behind the times and traditionally out of touch with the general public, these days it’s different, if dark knight came out now then it’s likely he would have received a nomination (had he not died) and not won the Oscar as comic book movies have become mainstream.
So let me get this straight.
Instead of celebrating a performance that got recognized despite the traditional shunning of scifi, fantasy, and comic movies by the Hollywood establishment, even if it was recognition that only broke through the bias because of the actors tragic death, you're going to complain about a performance that got recognized for being absolutely phenomenal despite the traditional shunning of scifi, fantasy, and comic movies by the Hollywood establishment on the conditional that he didn't deserve it in a climate that traditionally shuns of scifi, fantasy, and comic movies.
I swear if that isn't the most backward thing I've read in awhile.
Formosa wrote: He didn’t deserve an Oscar for that role in a climate that traditionally ignored sci fi, fantasy and comic book movies, in the context of the times it seemed like pure pandering, bare in mind Hollywood is behind the times and traditionally out of touch with the general public, these days it’s different, if dark knight came out now then it’s likely he would have received a nomination (had he not died) and not won the Oscar as comic book movies have become mainstream.
So let me get this straight.
Instead of celebrating a performance that got recognized despite the traditional shunning of scifi, fantasy, and comic movies by the Hollywood establishment, even if it was recognition that only broke through the bias because of the actors tragic death, you're going to complain about a performance that got recognized for being absolutely phenomenal despite the traditional shunning of scifi, fantasy, and comic movies by the Hollywood establishment on the conditional that he didn't deserve it in a climate that traditionally shuns of scifi, fantasy, and comic movies.
I swear if that isn't the most backward thing I've read in awhile.
Nope I am going to complain that a performance that was good, but not oscar worthy, got an oscar so hollywood could continue to pat itself on the back about how great they are, and thats all the oscars really are.
The only thing that really matters is if you enjoyed his version of the joker, if you did thats absolutely fine, I liked it too, I dont think it deserved an oscar over things like 2001 a space oddessy (SP?), Alien etc. as by giving an oscar to dark knight, they are saying its better, or its acting is better, and that i do not agree with.
Had he lived then he would likely have got nothing, that makes it an empty gesture from a corrupt system, I liken it to "gi'mes" medals that you earn for sunshine tours like cyprus or hawaii, the medal isnt worth a damn because it hasnt really been earned honestly and its just given because thats what is expected, its fundamentally dishonest to me, you can of course have a different opinion though.
So, if the Oscars are about Hollywood patting itself on the back, why are you upset that Hollywood recognized one of its lost members and then patted itself on the back?
(The idea that Hollywood = The Oscars is pretty laughable anyways)
Braveheart won a Best Picture. Hell, just look at the victories and snubs for Best Picture in the 90's. Whether or not something is Oscar worthy is completely arbitrary.
The nominees for Best Supporting Actor were not great the year that Ledger won it. He was easily the strongest point of the highest grossing film that year and TDK was critically praised.
His death probably clinched the award, but the idea that he was somehow terrible and only won because he died is laughable.
squidhills wrote: I think we can all agree that: Mark Hamill's Joker > everyone else's Joker, right?
No argument there!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: Im not missing what was the writer and what was the actor.
What i am saying is ledgers joker is the best joker we have seen live action. Ledger in no way did a bad job with the writing and directing he was given. He did a good job with it and gave us the best version so far.
Deserves an award? Probably not. But the acadamy awards are nonsense anyway so what difference does that make? We all know they are not impartial or even practical in who wins what. So why does anyone care who won what or didnt?
I was simply saying when people talk up ledgers joker they are talking up that JOKER. Not necessarily ledger, but the character we got.
Except I disagree. I don't see anything funny about Heath Ledger's Joker. He's just a run-of-the-mill psychopath, nothing more.
The Joker, on the other hand, has style and a sense of humor that one can relate to. It comes through in Mark Hamil's depiction. It comes through in Jack Nicolson's depiction. Caesar Romero's version overdid the humor and lost the psychotic insanity... but what does one expect from such a campy version of Batman?
But at least Ledger wasn't Leto, on that we can agree.
trexmeyer wrote: Braveheart won a Best Picture. Hell, just look at the victories and snubs for Best Picture in the 90's. Whether or not something is Oscar worthy is completely arbitrary.
The nominees for Best Supporting Actor were not great the year that Ledger won it. He was easily the strongest point of the highest grossing film that year and TDK was critically praised.
His death probably clinched the award, but the idea that he was somehow terrible and only won because he died is laughable.
Frank langella frost/Nixon, should have won it, but I concede the point that it was a thin year for compition, as I said he deserved a nomination but circumstances of why he got it do not sit right with me.
Elbows wrote: I don't think you'll find many people who agree with your opinion (keep in mind, it's indeed your opinion).
I never understood why so many people thought Ledger's performance as the Joker was so great. I'll grant you he came across completely insane, but he lacked the zany humor that is what distinguishes the Joker for a random psychopath.
But I admit, a lot of people did seem to like it for some reason.
Yeah, for some reason they really liked Ledger's performance of a completely insane psychopath. The "zany humor" of the joker was always second to the fact that he is a cold hearted murderer who would shoot anybody in the face to cause a little chaos.
But for some reason people see a clown suit and go "HES GOTTA BE FUNNY"
You did notice the character is named THE JOKER, right?
The insanity and the humor are part and parcel of the same character. If you only have one aspect, you don't have the Joker.
Ledger's character was absolutely insane.... and humorless. We barely see him laugh at all. Much of the time he's SCOWLING, even when his plans are going well.
When the Joker's plans are going well, he's laughing. Sometimes when he fails, he laughs his backside off over it!
The Joker is mercurial in his moods. He'll go from laughing to murderous in a split-second. And then after killing someone, he'll casually toss off a joke and laugh some more. When facing him you never know if the gun he pulled is real, or if it will 'fire' a flag that says 'bang'. Heck, sometimes even HE doesn't know!
Like I said, Ledger's character was insane; so insane it probably lead to Ledger's death (always a problem when a method actor plays a psychopath). But I just didn't see him as the Joker at all.
@vulcan. Disagree. Joker isn't goofs and gags. Hes horrible. No sane person laughs at his "jokes". Go find a good batman story thats a laugh riot because of the joker.
Hamil was great. But animated was a kids show and the joker was toned back, mostly, to reflect that. But batman beyond return of the joker? Mask of the phantasm? The arkham games? Those are not laugh out loud joker bits. Those are twisted and horrible and go to some real dark places because the joker isnt funny. Hes a monster.
I'm not the best knower of Captain Marvel things, but I did read a short arc on her on Marvel Unlimited a while back, around her "Ms Marvel" time.
That and she's cropped up in the X-Men comics a few times. The sort of sense I got from her was she's like a female James Bond with superpowers, and that was a pretty neat concept.
Elbows wrote: I don't think you'll find many people who agree with your opinion (keep in mind, it's indeed your opinion).
I never understood why so many people thought Ledger's performance as the Joker was so great. I'll grant you he came across completely insane, but he lacked the zany humor that is what distinguishes the Joker for a random psychopath.
But I admit, a lot of people did seem to like it for some reason.
Yeah, for some reason they really liked Ledger's performance of a completely insane psychopath. The "zany humor" of the joker was always second to the fact that he is a cold hearted murderer who would shoot anybody in the face to cause a little chaos.
But for some reason people see a clown suit and go "HES GOTTA BE FUNNY"
You did notice the character is named THE JOKER, right?
Yeah, that is the joke about his character. Nothing he does is funny, except to him. He thinks he is hilarious. Everybody else thinks he is a murdering cold-blooded psychopath. Because he is.
If you really think the Joker is funny or meant to be funny, I mean, oooof.
I kinda don't want to fall into the offtopicness trap but... I'd disagree with the idea that the Joker isn't supposed to be funny.
I mean, really, most comic characters are entirely dependent on the lens you want to view them through, Batman characters more than most, I'd say.
Personally, I like the idea of a Joker that you find funny, but then you feel really awful about finding it funny.
"I wouldn't worry yet if I were you. It's just a psychological manifestation common among librarians. She thinks she's a coffee table edition. Though I can't say much for this volume's condition; I mean, there's a hole in the jacket... and the spine appears to be damaged."
Formosa wrote: got an oscar so hollywood could continue to pat itself on the back about how great they are, and thats all the oscars really are.
For someone denouncing the worth of an Oscar, your sure seem picky who gets them.
It is the Academy Award. Handed out by the Academy. To the Academy. The Academy being a couple thousand Hollywood types who get together yearly for an industry award show, like every industry I can think of.
Had he lived then he would likely have got nothing, that makes it an empty gesture from a corrupt system
Can you even name the other nominees from that year without looking it up? I'm pretty sure Ledger's is the only one people are still making memes with.
Compel wrote: I'm not the best knower of Captain Marvel things, but I did read a short arc on her on Marvel Unlimited a while back, around her "Ms Marvel" time.
That and she's cropped up in the X-Men comics a few times. The sort of sense I got from her was she's like a female James Bond with superpowers, and that was a pretty neat concept.
She's an interesting character that will probably benefit from the streamlining that most characters get when jumping from page to screen!
For someone denouncing the worth of an Oscar, your sure seem picky who gets them
well yeah, I love the idea of giving awards when they are earned properly, people should get praised for spectacular work, and sadly heath ledgers joker is not that, it was good as ive said multiple times, but not the highest form of excellence which is what the Oscars is supposed to be for.
Can you even name the other nominees from that year without looking it up? I'm pretty sure Ledger's is the only one people are still making memes with.
yep
Robert downey Jr
Thanos
Michael Shannon from shape of water, man of steel and revolutionary road, not really around much at the moment.
Philip seymour hoffman, who died, but was still making movies up to his death.
So Thanos and RDJ are still kicking around and going strong, michael shannon has kind of dropped off in the last year or so and philip seymour hoffman is dead
Ledger's performance is fantastic. It is not a strictly comic accurate interpretation of the character, but little in Nolan's universe is. He plays the character created for that interpretation brilliantly though, with the primary weakness simply being that his greatest accomplishment in the role is creating a sense of dangerous unpredictability, which isn't exactly something you continue to feel when you've seen it and know what's going to happen.
Mark Hamill easily has the best all around comic accurate Joker. His most comic accurate scene is sadly really hard to come by these days, as it was censored out of the Batman Beyond movie due to the Columbine shootings. The edit leaves the performance mostly intact but is less visceral and loses some of the impact of his manic laughter as everyone is horrified by his actions.
Jack Nicholson did a phenomenal job as well. The script leaves the character light on mystery but he set a gold standard for the character that's mostly dismissed because of where the franchise went in its later installments.
Alpharius wrote: Not sure, but after the last few pages here, it looks as if it will have the first Marvel/DC crossover on film?
And then we all go to see the actual movie and in the after credits scene at the end Brie Larson appears dressed as the Joker reenacting scenes from the Animated Series, The Dark Knight, and Tim Burton's Batman
Oddly enough I bought and reread that series and the more recent follow ups just prior to xmas.
.. In some of the follow up stories -- when the squadron is stuck on the Avengers earth -- Captain Marvel is back on the team -- but is *gasp* losing/has lost her Binary powers/form -- and is starting to become an alcoholic.
.... no chance of ever getting a successful series of films out of a comic book character who is ..?
They briefly touched on it in IM2 at the beginning, when he was getting trashed in his suit, falling all over the place, and basically making an ass of himself. But it was fleeting. They opted to make the fight for him in the MCU the shrapnel in his chest, threatening to kill him if his tech fails.
Gonna see this because it’s “necessary” for Avengers: End Game, but Captain Marvel was never really important for me; she was just the hero Rogue drained fully to gain her strength and flight abilities.
For quite a while, the Avengers were pretty third tier for Marvel and didn't have a whole lot of mainstream exposure outside of solo appearances. They were a much bigger deal to pre-80's comic fans and Carol was a fairly important part for fans of that era of the team. I didn't have a lot of knowledge of her either outside of the Rogue footnote, but when Bendis made the team more of Marvel's comic centerpiece I found her to be a pretty great part of the team. Unfortunately she's been in a weird place for me where I vastly prefer her Captain Marvel name and costume, but she hasn't really been written that well since the change.
Bumping this instead of starting a new one, hope that's okay.
It comes out in just three weeks. Some various news.
Trolls are apparently already starting the review bombing at RT. I don't really recall this happening to Wonder Woman and think it's a combination of rumors that Captain Marvel will be more powerful than Thor and that Brie Larson is disliked compared to Gal Gadot. Gadot did have the benefit of an appearance in BvS that was widely praised as being one of the sole strong parts of the film and I think the first female superhero hype drowned out everything else. It probably helped that there was less general interest in the DCEU by that point and WW wasn't leading up to what will possibly be the biggest MCU film. As far as Captain Marvel's power goes she has been doing this for 20~ years so from that perspective I don't see an issue with her being a powerhouse, but I can understand the perspective of being annoyed that a newcomer suddenly trumps characters that fans have come to know and love.
The box office predictions are all over the place. The film could do anything from $700 mil to possibly a $1.2-1.3 billion range. I think it cracking $1 billion would be a strong showing. Ant-Man and the Wasp did a paltry $622.7 mil so being an MCU film is no guarantee of it being a massive financial success. However, the post credits scene should bring in all hardcore MCU fans alone.
Lastly, early reviews should be coming out today or tomorrow.
Yeah, it's pretty remarkable how the Marvel films have twisted our perspective on box office. An ANT-MAN film did over $600 million.
*ANT-MAN*. *600 MILLION*.
That's literally incredible, and shows the immense power of the Marvel brand. Because ultimately you're talking about a nice film that's entertaining but not wildly so. The character isn't even popular in the comics. There's no way the math should add up to $600 million.
I'm really not sold on the CM film, and don't think it'll have the cultural reverberations that WW did. But $700 mil is clearly the absolute floor that it should race past easily.
Yeah, a projected $1 billion being reduced to 'a strong showing' is a warped perspective. That's up in the 'top grossing films of all time.'
The review bombing idiots are unsurprising at this point. Sad indicator of how stupid and prejudiced our societies are, but not a surprise. I'm more surprised tomatoes website is backwards enough to allow pre-release reviews. Obviously it should be wiped and locked until people have a chance to see it before issuing fake 'reviews' (or angry rants about women)
I don't think ww has had cultural reverberations. Nobody talks about it any more except as 1 of 2 good dceu movies. While the merch is all over i don't see kids running around with the toys/masks/whatever. Id say the character is about as popular now as she was before with the exception that she has a good portrayal on film for once.
CM has been beat to that punch already, and unlike WW there's basically no awareness about the character other than what's been shown in ads for the movie. Another female-led superhero film is another positive step forward, and the film should do great by any sane metric. I just don't think it'll be quite as talked-about this spring as WW was that summer. That's all.
Thats fair. But i also think thats going to have a lot to do with endgame. Carol Danvers is most likely going to be talked about this summer in relation to her 2 movie story instead of her one.
CM has been beat to that punch already, and unlike WW there's basically no awareness about the character other than what's been shown in ads for the movie. Another female-led superhero film is another positive step forward, and the film should do great by any sane metric. I just don't think it'll be quite as talked-about this spring as WW was that summer. That's all.
Reasonably expectation. I'm looking forward to it and I'd be surprised if its not at least good, but I'm dreading all the discussion about how many millions is going to be considered successful enough for it.
I've liked Carol ever since Marvel decided to put some effort into her in House of M. A really iconic film would go a long way to firming up her continuity woes and giving her a steady status quo to fall back on.
trexmeyer wrote: I don't really recall this happening to Wonder Woman and think it's a combination of rumors that Captain Marvel will be more powerful than Thor and that Brie Larson is disliked compared to Gal Gadot.
Nah, it's everything to do with the fact that Carol's comics reboot over the last six years or so is a direct punch in the dick to the kind of knuckle dragging basement dwellers that want non-male superfolk to not exist, or be nothing but tits and skin. She's a symbol to many who have been doing work to excavate human shaped sacks of excrement from "nerddom", and that makes her a target.
trexmeyer wrote: I don't really recall this happening to Wonder Woman and think it's a combination of rumors that Captain Marvel will be more powerful than Thor and that Brie Larson is disliked compared to Gal Gadot.
Nah, it's everything to do with the fact that Carol's comics reboot over the last six years or so is a direct punch in the dick to the kind of knuckle dragging basement dwellers that want non-male superfolk to not exist, or be nothing but tits and skin. She's a symbol to many who have been doing work to excavate human shaped sacks of excrement from "nerddom", and that makes her a target.
Just wanted to quote this in case anyone missed their daily dose of venomous, hate-filled garbage on the internet.
Given it is currently being review bombed by hateful gits prior to the review copies... It seems hard to declare that an inaccurate summary, if immoderate in tone.
Voss wrote: Given it is currently being review bombed by hateful gits prior to the review copies... It seems hard to declare that an inaccurate summary, if immoderate in tone.
Given that the backchannel suggests that someone went too far in pushing this as a Feminist movie, rather than a really good (and long overdue) movie that just happens to feature a female lead kicking ass, it's deserved.
Note that Alita isn't getting hammered, despite the protagonist being an ass-kicking female. But then, nobody's running their mouths trying to make it some kind of statement.
If the movie is legitimately good, then that's all it needs to be. People will be happy with that. That's what I hope this will be.
It's like nobody learned anything from how badly the Ghostbusters remake was marketed.
Voss wrote: Given it is currently being review bombed by hateful gits prior to the review copies... It seems hard to declare that an inaccurate summary, if immoderate in tone.
Given that the backchannel suggests that someone went too far in pushing this as a Feminist movie, rather than a really good (and long overdue) movie that just happens to feature a female lead kicking ass, it's deserved.
Note that Alita isn't getting hammered, despite the protagonist being an ass-kicking female. But then, nobody's running their mouths trying to make it some kind of statement.
If the movie is legitimately good, then that's all it needs to be. People will be happy with that. That's what I hope this will be.
It's like nobody learned anything from how badly the Ghostbusters remake was marketed.
When it comes to the Rotten Tomatoes "review bomb" does anyone realize that the poll put up is actually being used as intended? It's not asking if it's a good or bad movie, it's asking if you are planning on seeing it. So any response to that poll is valid.
Quite frankly, there are a number of reasons to not see this movie. Ticket sale estimates have plummeted from near $200 million to $80 million. If corporate people are losing faith, it's an omen of bad quality. Then there are a number of questionable comments made by the lead actress. Disenfranchising a rather large segment of the population isn't a good idea.
In my humble opinion it's at least partially being marketed as "Woman lead makes good movie". Which is both a non-valid argument, and the same marketing mistake made for Ghostbusters 2016.
Will this be a good movie? I don't know. I hope it is, but at the same time I am cautiously hoping they don't turn Captain Marvel into a huge Mary Sue. The marketing strategy has been flawed.
Also, as a side note, the tagline for this move is "Higher, Faster, Further". Damnit, did no one on the production team pass an English class? It's "Farther, not Further".
As I said earlier in the thread, if the studio can keep Brie larson in line and not push this political nonsense, then all is good, but they did it, they pushed politics, they didnt keep a tight hold of Brie larson and now I think that they will suffer for getting involved in the culture war, if its not this film then it will be another as the fanbase, which overwhelmingly are sick of this nonsense, form a backlash, try to blame it on trolls if you want people just know that they didnt fire the first shot, the marketing team did and now the consequences are on the way..... it bloody sucks....
AAAAAand with all that in mind, Alita Battle Angel has a strong female lead, who as above said, kicks arse, is a great role model for young woman, strong, independent, vunerable, makes mistakes and learns from them so grows as a character, the film may not be perfect but it has done all that so well, I was happy to go and see it again with my family in tow..
and just to hammer home how to do marketing correctly
Moral of the story, stay as far away from the streaming cesspit that is the culture war and anyone associated with it as much as possible, it never ends well.
Also, as a side note, the tagline for this move is "Higher, Faster, Further". Damnit, did no one on the production team pass an English class? It's "Farther, not Further".
Only pertaining to distance, not a figurative journey beyond what has been. So it's only incorrrect in a literal sense, but without intent or further context, we can't make a call on whether it was intended literally or not.
trexmeyer wrote: I don't really recall this happening to Wonder Woman and think it's a combination of rumors that Captain Marvel will be more powerful than Thor and that Brie Larson is disliked compared to Gal Gadot.
Nah, it's everything to do with the fact that Carol's comics reboot over the last six years or so is a direct punch in the dick to the kind of knuckle dragging basement dwellers that want non-male superfolk to not exist, or be nothing but tits and skin. She's a symbol to many who have been doing work to excavate human shaped sacks of excrement from "nerddom", and that makes her a target.
Just wanted to quote this in case anyone missed their daily dose of venomous, hate-filled garbage on the internet.
Thank you for pointing this out. The post you quoted proves something I've said for a LONG time: Whackadoo lunatic behavior for a noble cause is still whackadoo lunatic behavior, and should be called out as such loudly and often.
I admit, no interest in watching this movie, though I do love Brie Larson (especially in "Free Fire" and "Kong") but it is because I have next to no idea who captain marvel is, I don't like comic books or superhero movies as a whole. I have seen a lot of arguments about the movie. I do see it as pushing a character that pretty much only comic fans will recognize and being upset that it may not be as well received as Wonder Woman, who is a character I am pretty sure most people who aren't even comic fans know about.
Excuses for failure/mediocrity have already begun.
Movie studios are probably going to implement some way to make celebrities control their outbursts and tirades when money is on the line.
And sad, I kinda wanted to see this but it's gone from entertainment to culture war/activism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: Given it is currently being review bombed by hateful gits prior to the review copies... It seems hard to declare that an inaccurate summary, if immoderate in tone.
Yeah, just like they did during... Wonder Woman?
Oh, wait.
Those 'review bombs' all appear to be people saying "I have no interest in seeing this". You know how some folks like to say, "Oh well, if you don't like it don't watch it!" Yeah, well- that's kinda what appears to be happening right now.
Sterling191 wrote: Nah, it's everything to do with the fact that Carol's comics reboot over the last six years or so is a direct punch in the dick to the kind of knuckle dragging basement dwellers that want non-male superfolk to not exist, or be nothing but tits and skin. She's a symbol to many who have been doing work to excavate human shaped sacks of excrement from "nerddom", and that makes her a target.
Well it's a good thing she's absolutely shattering the trend, because absolutely no female leads in any action or sci-fi movie have existed prior to 2019 and I'm sure if they did, these human-shaped sacks of excrement probably would have hated them.
They can't all be Allen Ripley from Alien, Larry Croft from Tomb Raider, Sam Connor from The Terminator, The Groom from Kill Bill, etc.
That's why they're all going to watch Battle Angel Elliot instead.
Excuses for failure/mediocrity have already begun.
Movie studios are probably going to implement some way to make celebrities control their outbursts and tirades when money is on the line.
And sad, I kinda wanted to see this but it's gone from entertainment to culture war/activism.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Voss wrote: Given it is currently being review bombed by hateful gits prior to the review copies... It seems hard to declare that an inaccurate summary, if immoderate in tone.
Yeah, just like they did during... Wonder Woman?
Oh, wait.
Those 'review bombs' all appear to be people saying "I have no interest in seeing this". You know how some folks like to say, "Oh well, if you don't like it don't watch it!" Yeah, well- that's kinda what appears to be happening right now.
Sterling191 wrote: Nah, it's everything to do with the fact that Carol's comics reboot over the last six years or so is a direct punch in the dick to the kind of knuckle dragging basement dwellers that want non-male superfolk to not exist, or be nothing but tits and skin. She's a symbol to many who have been doing work to excavate human shaped sacks of excrement from "nerddom", and that makes her a target.
Well it's a good thing she's absolutely shattering the trend, because absolutely no female leads in any action or sci-fi movie have existed prior to 2019 and I'm sure if they did, these human-shaped sacks of excrement probably would have hated them.
They can't all be Allen Ripley from Alien, Larry Croft from Tomb Raider, Sam Connor from The Terminator, The Groom from Kill Bill, etc.
That's why they're all going to watch Battle Angel Elliot instead.
In all fairness the hit pieces have started on Alita now too, certain "journalists" have tried claiming all sorts of outlandish things about it, its almost as if they are paid to defame the competitor
Formosa wrote: In all fairness the hit pieces have started on Alita now too, certain "journalists" have tried claiming all sorts of outlandish things about it, its almost as if they are paid to defame the competitor
Oh, you mean the "Usual Suspects" that take payouts to write hit pieces of puff pieces? I'm shocked it took them this long, maybe the Studio is being a bit more frugal with the checks, what with all the anticipated financial loss.
Or perhaps they're learning that the majority of people know the "Usual Suspects" write articles with about as much credibility as the ones you find in Weekly World News. Which is, quite honestly, kind of terrible- I mean, when Weekly World News journalists write about aliens it's very possible they could exist, unlike anything the Usual Suspects pull out of their rectal cavity.
One of the reviewer guys I trust in the US has seen a preview of it and he's extremely positive about it. He is one of the classical liberal types, but still he's got plenty of depth to his personality that I trust him.
Cpt Marvel will open at $100 M, give or take $15 M and close with around $600 M. The money is IMO not contriversial and entirely beside the point. TLJ made over $1 B but significantly dissipated audience good will at a delicate time. Cpt M will make a lot of money but will it divide a heretofore unified audience? If so, will Endgame heal or exacerbate that problem? These are the real questions.
Captain Marvel is already dividing the fanbase and creating audience badwill where there was none before. It's unbelievably stupid in the run-up to Endgame.
Yes, Marvel is long overdue in launching a female-led franchise. Yes, they should have done a Black Widow movie back when ScarJo was younger and "new". Yes, it's good to acknowledge this as a mea culpa. But no, it doesn't need to go farther than that.
Assuming that Brie continues to run her mouth and say stupid SJW gak, she's only going to hurt her Captain Marvel sub-franchise, bringing the worldwide gross down to a pitiable $450M. This would be fine, because it was budgeted at $150M, and ties into the overall Avengers franchise.
Worst case, she brings Avengers Endgame down from an Infinity War $2.0+ BILLION down to an Ultron $1.4 BILLION for a -$600M hit. If that happens, you will never see Brie Larsen again, and Captain Marvel will go on indefinite hiatus like The Incredible Hulk.
Again, the vast majority are not reading what we are reading or taking from it what you are taking from it. IF any miniscule group decides to get their panties in a bunch over captain marvel being promoted as pro female (not a political stance btw) they wont be dividing anything.
TLJ didnt tank solo. Solo tanked solo. Between its poor release time, neglible promotion, and vastly public troubled profuction it didnt need any help to do the numbers it did.
CM will get ranked just like ANY other marvel movie. I expect that like black panther there will be a bunch of hub bub about minority movie whatever and representation and a year later nobody will be talking about it. End game wont have to save anything. It will just make stupid amounts of money like IW did.
And hulk isnt on hiatus because of performance. Another studio (universal?) Owns the rights to a solo hulk movie. Its the ONLY reason we havent seen another solo hulk outing acording to marvel movie execs.
Again, the vast majority are not reading what we are reading or taking from it what you are taking from it. IF any miniscule group decides to get their panties in a bunch over captain marvel being promoted as pro female (not a political stance btw) they wont be dividing anything.
TLJ didnt tank solo. Solo tanked solo. Between its poor release time, neglible promotion, and vastly public troubled profuction it didnt need any help to do the numbers it did.
CM will get ranked just like ANY other marvel movie. I expect that like black panther there will be a bunch of hub bub about minority movie whatever and representation and a year later nobody will be talking about it. End game wont have to save anything. It will just make stupid amounts of money like IW did.
And hulk isnt on hiatus because of performance. Another studio (universal?) Owns the rights to a solo hulk movie. Its the ONLY reason we havent seen another solo hulk outing acording to marvel movie execs.
They dont need to read it, thats why the marketing is so important and thats why keeping brie larson in check is important, the marketing has already started to push an agenda and the general public will notice, as to the effect that has, well thats up for debate, I think they will lose money over it, but the film will still make heaps of money.
the lies and propaganda have already started, if the film fails (fat chance of that) they will blame the sexist trolls, if it does well, they will say woke movies can work, from either standpoint we all lose, because this nonsense will continue to poison the film industry, like its poisoned every other industry its touched, people dont want politics in their entertainment that is not in the context of the film and internally consistent , recent pew poles showed that "progressives" were 8% of the US pop, "conservatives" were 12% and the rest..... the politically exhausted...... THAT is why this stuff needs to stay away, the majority of the audience will be the Politically Exhausted, we just want our escapism.
And again, that is why Alita is so good, it was a film that left the nonsense out.
Lance845 wrote: TLJ didnt tank solo. Solo tanked solo. Between its poor release time, neglible promotion, and vastly public troubled profuction it didnt need any help to do the numbers it did.
Ah... don't be so sure. I know quite a few people who went to see every SW movie on opening night who still have NOT seen Solo in retribution for the gak storm that was TLJ.
Even after I told them Solo was a far better movie than TLJ.
And this seems to be a rather common theme among the dedicated SW fans who would routinely go see a SW movies a dozen times or more in the theater.
If Captain Marvel does well, it’s because it’s Marvel, people freaking love Marvel. And that’s because Marvel produces films with lots to enjoy.
Rather than proving as claimed that ‘woke’ Movies can work, it’ll prove that it’s not a hindrance.
This is why Black Panther is notable. For a long time, perceived wisdom was that a predominantly black cast wasn’t a box office draw.
This is why Wonder Woman and other female centric movies have been notable of late. Because they’ve been successful (no, not universally so, but I’m getting to that) despite the perceived wisdom that a female centric movie, or even a female lead, wasn’t a box office draw.
And here’s we look at something interesting.
How many crap superhero films have there been? Superman Returns. Batman va Superman. Fantastic Four (all three, though I’ve a soft spot for Silver Surfer), X-Men 3, Spider-man 3, Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2, Hulk, Daredevil, Electra, Catwoman, Green Lantern, Ghost Rider 1 & 2, Jonah Hex, Wolverine 1 & 2, Supergirl.
That’s just some off the top of my head.
Now, care to spot which were held up as an example that the gender of the lead had a damned thing to do with it?
Well, I’ll tell ya. Elektra, Catwoman and Supergirl.
Never mind all three were just crap, the perceived wisdom is they’re crap because Wimmins Can’t Lead. The others? Didn’t put anyone off Male leads, despite being box office disappointments, bombs or outright disasters.
And now we have to put up with sad little keyboard warrior oiks getting out their prams to decry female lead films the second they’re announced (not including anyone here in that comment)
Can you see why successful ones are held up? Can you see why that success is celebrated? It’s not just the inclusion factor (which is cause for celebration in itself if you ask me), but showing the ‘perceived wisdom’ for the utter bollocks it’s always been.
If you really cannot grasp in your cerebral tentacle why that makes certain films important, I give up. It’s not about you enjoying them yourself. It’s about the audience they found loving them, and being largely new audiences for the wider genre.
Variety is not a bad thing. Never has been. Never will be. Nobody is demanding ‘like Ghostbusters: Answer The Call, OR ELSE’. Nobody is demanding a silence on all criticism of Black Panther or Wonder Woman (Black Panther is ultimately your standard Marvel back story fare, complete with Evil Twin baddie. Wonder Woman? Gal Gadot cannot act to save her life, makes my antique wooden bookcase look animated, and has all the emotional range of a Kipper if you ask me). And peeps really need to stop pretending that’s the case by holding up a comment by the odd fringe lunatic as proof.
Now. Can we all be about our business, and at least agree that nobody really cares what anyone thinks about a film if we ourselves enjoy it? No need to justify your reaction either way.
If Captain Marvel does well, it’s because it’s Marvel, people freaking love Marvel. And that’s because Marvel produces films with lots to enjoy
yep, thats the ONLY reason why it will make money, because Marvel is an established universe, no one has heard of captain marvel, no one cares about captain marvel, the comics are a failure and now we get this movie BEFORE a Black Widow one???
Rather than proving as claimed that ‘woke’ Movies can work, it’ll prove that it’s not a hindrance.
Their words, not mine, like i said the article have already started to pump out, and again, they made it about this, not me, and yes it can and has been a hinderance, "dont like it, Dont buy it"
This is why Black Panther is notable. For a long time, perceived wisdom was that a predominantly black cast wasn’t a box office draw.
Black Panther is notable as being the first mega movie that used activist marketing, it really was a sight to see and very impressive, they turned it into a cult following by using race as a marketing tool, it made so much money that this will likely become the norm now.
This is why Wonder Woman and other female centric movies have been notable of late. Because they’ve been successful (no, not universally so, but I’m getting to that) despite the perceived wisdom that a female centric movie, or even a female lead, wasn’t a box office draw.
The entire Rom/Com and Romantic movie industry proves this wrong, woman like different things generally, nothing wrong with that, men like their strong female characters to be badass, strong but still vunerable and not mary sue, woman like their male versions to be similar, strong, badass and a bit damaged, it appeals to both sensabilities, men want to protec, woman want to heal, but both genders HATE mary sues/marty stus.
Wonder woman did very well because it was a great story and had great acting the hopefulness of wonder woman and the cynicism of pine worked so well as a dynamic.
How many crap superhero films have there been? Superman Returns. Batman va Superman. Fantastic Four (all three, though I’ve a soft spot for Silver Surfer), X-Men 3, Spider-man 3, Amazing Spider-Man 1 and 2, Hulk, Daredevil, Electra, Catwoman, Green Lantern, Ghost Rider 1 & 2, Jonah Hex, Wolverine 1 & 2, Supergirl.
Wanna know what they all have in common, not taking the source material seriously, needless changes, bad scripts, bad acting and studio interference, the perfect storm of mediocrity.
Now, care to spot which were held up as an example that the gender of the lead had a damned thing to do with it?
Again the marketing are the ones making a big deal of it, people are reacting to it, and rightly so.
Well, I’ll tell ya. Elektra, Catwoman and Supergirl.
None of those films used identity politics to push an agenda or shout down negative views, because all this nonsense didnt really kick off until 2014/15
Never mind all three were just crap, the perceived wisdom is they’re crap because Wimmins Can’t Lead. The others? Didn’t put anyone off Male leads, despite being box office disappointments, bombs or outright disasters.
No, that is YOUR perceived wisdom and that of your tribes wisdom, the rest of the world do not care about the gender of the lead role as long as the film is good, one need only look at the backlash ben afleck got for batman, had he been female then the usual propaganda would have been used, sexism etc. to defend him, the whole thing is just a stupid game by a tiny number of people who are very very loud and have a lot of power.
And now we have to put up with sad little keyboard warrior oiks getting out their prams to decry female lead films the second they’re announced (not including anyone here in that comment)
again this is a false narrative used to try and discredit and disenting views, your a smart guy Doc, so you know that most of the comments are not from people like above, but normal every day people.
Can you see why successful ones are held up? Can you see why that success is celebrated? It’s not just the inclusion factor (which is cause for celebration in itself if you ask me), but showing the ‘perceived wisdom’ for the utter bollocks it’s always been.
Because they are entertaining and tell a good story, full stop, thats it, a movie can be "woke" as hell but awful because it sacrificed story and acting for a message that the massive majority does not want to hear, they dont want to be preached at, they want to go to the cinema and watch a fun film.
If you really cannot grasp in your cerebral tentacle why that makes certain films important, I give up. It’s not about you enjoying them yourself. It’s about the audience they found loving them, and being largely new audiences for the wider genre.
I understand what makes certain films important, American history X, Citizen Kain, 2001 a space oddessy (SP?) all had their takes on social commentary, none of them were popcorn super hero films designed to entertain, they all very clearly wanted to tell a story and teach a lesson, so people are free to seek out those movies and watch them if they choose.
Variety is not a bad thing. Never has been. Never will be. Nobody is demanding ‘like Ghostbusters: Answer The Call, OR ELSE’. Nobody is demanding a silence on all criticism of Black Panther or Wonder Woman (Black Panther is ultimately your standard Marvel back story fare, complete with Evil Twin baddie. Wonder Woman? Gal Gadot cannot act to save her life, makes my antique wooden bookcase look animated, and has all the emotional range of a Kipper if you ask me). And peeps really need to stop pretending that’s the case by holding up a comment by the odd fringe lunatic as proof.
actually, yes they are, and i can provide you links, I can provide you proof that people tried to silence criticism of black panther with direct threats (twitter... anyone shocked) and wonder woman didnt get involved with the culture war nonsense, and I wont use an odd fringe lunatic, i will use only mainstream sites, you wont like what you read.
Now. Can we all be about our business, and at least agree that nobody really cares what anyone thinks about a film if we ourselves enjoy it? No need to justify your reaction either way.
yes thats true, but people are actively trying to force a point of view on us, they are telling us to like it or we are sexists, evil etc. so while i agree with you, its aint us thats the problem, we didnt start this crap, we just want it gone and to get on with our lives.
I would suggest that Wonder Woman did so well because it was the best DCU movie to come out to date, the bar having been successively lowered by thing like Suicide Skwad coupled with an inane "edgy" marketing campaign leaking Leto being a donkey cave to everyone on set. Stepping over an ant was a great accomplishment, and DC fans were desperate for anything that didn't suck. Tie that with an above-par movie, and social relevance, and it did very well for a DC movie, about as well as Thor: Ragnarok.
As for social commentary, many Marvel movies have touched on it in some way or other, but they don't go out of their way to make it at the fore. How many moviegoers knew that Infinity War would be about Sustainability and the Malthusian Trap? I'm guessing almost none, because they didn't have their marketing team and Josh Brolin referencing the Paris Carbon Agreements. Those would all have been on-point commentary, but it's not the point. But if they had made Infinity War about manmade Global Warming, the controversy would have split the (US) audience.
So... we'll see how CM is received. Personally, I am not planning to see CM in the theatre, but maybe I'll borrow it from the library down the line. I will be watching Endgame, though. And I will be watching Alita.
Mostly nerds love to see stuff fail (desperately) through some sociopathic need to see the world burn to feel better about themselves.
For some, Captain Marvel HAS to suck, so they can be in the "in" crowd complaining about it.
As for myself, I assume it will be a fun to watch but horribly by-the-books "hero's journey", just like Black Panther. Black Panther was awesome to watch, but you could see every plot twist a mile off. Its the same as how Dr Strange and Tony Stark went through the EXACT same personal journey, despite being awesomely fun to watch.
I personally don't care if Cpt. marvel is a woman, as long as I have fun in the theatre (though I love strong female leads).
Frazzled wrote: Again, not seeing where you are getting all that. But that's cool.
Edit: refers to Formosa's post.
Sorry Frazzled if i havent explained it properly, what specifically are you not understanding or have I not explained correctly, as I covered a lot of ground in that post.
Automatically Appended Next Post: thats not sarcasm btw
Dr Strange and Iron Man did feel like beat-for-beat the same movie to me. - I haven't actually watched Dr Strange again since.
I wouldn't say Thor felt quite the same way though. I mean, sure there's Hero's Journey elements, because there's always Hero's Journey elements. But I think Thor at least felt differently due it being more about his journey to be a Leader, rather than a Hero.
Sure, your standard Spider-man Origin story, like Maguire's and Amazing, that fits into the same mould (Ben = Yinsen = Ancient One) very neatly, but the MCU Spider-man Homecoming dispensed with that, probably because of those reasons.
As for Captain Marvel, I dunno. It feels like they're doing enough different with it with the memory wipe sort of angle that I don't see it falling into that sort of pattern too neatly.
I suppose I could design a test, loosely based on The Heroes Journey:
1) Carol Danvers is a snarky, smartmouthed, wisecracking arrogant and selfish jerk.
2) Carol Danvers is deprived of her support network, by being imprisoned in an unfamiliar territory.. Note: Prison may not be literal.
3) Carol Danvers meets a mentor who teaches her to look beyond her selfish and petty goals to see the bigger picture.
4) The Mentor is killed.
5) Spurred on by The Mentor's death, Carol Danvers resolves to become a hero, escaping her prison.
6) Carol Danvers discovers that a Senior Authority Figure betrayed her.
7) She defeats her Senior Authority Figure, making peace with her past and future.
TLJ certainly hurt Solo and the larger Lucasfilm release plans. There’s no point denying it anymore. Let’s learn from it. I think we’ll see the reverse in operation here, with anticipation for Endgame helping Cpt M — esp since it is widely sepculated that Cpt M will play an important role in Endgame. The issue remains, however, that Cpt M may be causing strife in a fandom that has heretofore been all rainbows and sunshine. The real issue is, having fired James Gunn, the Guardians subfranchise is on rocky territory and Cpt M will have to pick up theat slack as the MCU’s pathway to cosmic storytelling. Depending on how Cpt M is received (and the current version of character has not been a winner in comic sales), I would not be surprised to hear tell of a Nova movie on the not-too-distant horizon.
See, I think there is no point in continuing to think the small group who gets pissy about this stuff have as much power or sway as they seem to think.
PROVE that TLJ had more impact on Solo then the release time between 2 other monster releases, the lack of promotion, the poor production reports, and general audiences just not giving a gak about a prequel where we find out how han got his gun and ship?
You can't. And you never will.
PROVE that Cpt Marvel is causing strife that will impact their bottom line? Again, this group who gets upset because females are vocal about saying they are proud to be in female lead movies about powerful female characters is minute. Loud, but minute. And most people who go see Marvel movies are not watching the net for their venom. They are simply watching for the release date.
You guys are a drop in the bucket and the vast majority never hear a word you say.
Frazzled wrote: Again, not seeing where you are getting all that. But that's cool.
Edit: refers to Formosa's post.
Sorry Frazzled if i havent explained it properly, what specifically are you not understanding or have I not explained correctly, as I covered a lot of ground in that post.
Automatically Appended Next Post: thats not sarcasm btw
Pardon, I am not getting where all the SJW conflict is coming from.
Did you think Disney was injecting politics into their movies when they fired a director over a twitter history that included this?
NSFW
Spoiler:
I think James Gunn is an adult who as a professional should have kept his social media clean or understood that it could be used against him professionally. If my gak was full of that garbage with my actual name on it I would expect companies to react to it also. He could have purged his twitter history at any point. He didn't. He got pegged for it. Thats not politics. It's just basic work place ethics.
I agree with lance on this, its a lack of professionalism, but does also show double standards unfortunately, not from lance, but from disney and marvel, I can show plenty of tweets from artists, writers etc. that are very very racist or even call for violence against certain demographics, but because they are are advocating for a certain ideology Twitter, the mob and disney give them a pass.
Consistency is needed, either its not ok to be unprofessional and leave such tweets, or it is and all who commit such acts should be allowed to say as they please.
Frazzled wrote: Again, not seeing where you are getting all that. But that's cool.
Edit: refers to Formosa's post.
Sorry Frazzled if i havent explained it properly, what specifically are you not understanding or have I not explained correctly, as I covered a lot of ground in that post.
Automatically Appended Next Post: thats not sarcasm btw
Pardon, I am not getting where all the SJW conflict is coming from.
Currently its coming from sponsored articles and the main websites, brie larson herself and activist journalists, I can PM you links so you can see for yourself if you would like, for example a youtuber called starwarsgirl made a video about how she prefers the marketing for Alita than captain marvel due to the heavy over tones of feminism in captain marvels, she received threats (like online threats actually matter) from the very people advocating for her inclusion and rights.... its bonkers.
this is why i maintain that companies, movies etc. should stay away from the whole culture war thing, its a cesspit that will ultimately lose them money on way or the other, a no win situation.
Agree Formosa. Consistency would be great. I think it's because the media stirred up his twitter history that Disney felt the need to respond with the only response anyone could (read: should) expect. And in THAT regard Disney IS consistent. When these kinds of things have ever been placed on Disney's table publicly they have always had the same response. Break ties and disavow. "These do not reflect our values". Disney can be kind of gaks in that way.
They probably would have left all well enough alone if a spot light wasn't flashed onto it.
But again, there would have been nothing to put a spot light on if he was smart enough to keep things with his name on it clean.
Lance845 wrote: Agree Formosa. Consistency would be great. I think it's because the media stirred up his twitter history that Disney felt the need to respond with the only response anyone could (read: should) expect. And in THAT regard Disney IS consistent. When these kinds of things have ever been placed on Disney's table publicly they have always had the same response. Break ties and disavow. "These do not reflect our values". Disney can be kind of gaks in that way.
They probably would have left all well enough alone if a spot light wasn't flashed onto it.
But again, there would have been nothing to put a spot light on if he was smart enough to keep things with his name on it clean.
Disney is not consistent though, but likely for a couple of reasons, either they dont know and havent seen these artists, writers etc. or they are complicit, either way such things are against Twitters terms and conditions and they should be suspended for such comments or banned, but that is a completely different subject can of worms
Anyway, apart from all that, I will be waiting a few weeks after release of the movie for the real reviews to come out, from the actual audience, if the reviews are good then I will go and see the film based on that, never ever will i trust the "professional" reviewers.
Gunn used Twitter, among other resources, to create a professional reputation as an edgy dude, which in turn helped get him the job at Marvel Studio. And then he made the company a ton of money and ushered in a new phase of revitalized interest in the MCU. So then they fired him because I guess “the small group that gets pissy about this stuff” isn’t as small as some posters apparently think. That’s fething disgusting and I don’t even like Gunn’s views on stuff other than what a Guardians movie should be like. And it’s also why this Cpt M now has to bear a burden it was never designed for, structurally. So let’s see how this all continues to get spinned. Best case scenario, the personality-free character in the trailers somehow is just a weird mistake of marketing and we actuallyget totally charmed by this character whose book has been cancelled so many times.
Did you think Disney was injecting politics into their movies when they fired a director over a twitter history that included this?
NSFW
Spoiler:
I think James Gunn is an adult who as a professional should have kept his social media clean or understood that it could be used against him professionally. If my gak was full of that garbage with my actual name on it I would expect companies to react to it also. He could have purged his twitter history at any point. He didn't. He got pegged for it. Thats not politics. It's just basic work place ethics.
This is why I never use Twitter. Is it good for anything besides accidentally ruining your career, getting people PO'd, or setting a hateball rolling?
As a Star Wars junkie...TLJ IS the reason I didn’t see Solo in theaters. I started watching it on Netflix. It was so boring that I made it about halfway through, and haven’t finished it. It’s dull. Really, really dull. So I guess the only good thing about TLJ was that it prevented me from wasting a further $40 at the theater on Solo (2 tickets and snacks).
I actually like Carol’s backstory...especially the X-men portions where she helps shape Rogue, and when the X-Men are depowered in Genosha, Rogue is sexually traumatized (more humiliation, no rape), completely shuts down, and Carol takes over and goes on a breakout spree with Wolverine, as they both work to take down Genosha without any powers.
Idk if I’ve seen Carol hit the power level they’re planning in this movie, but I can believe it happened after Rogue drained her and left her in a coma back in the 80s. And I’ve actually avoided listening to Brie smacktalk online...but I’m looking forward to a kickass space version of Wonder Woman!
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I tried to read this thread, but seeing manbabies crying about SJW’s makes my eyes bleed.
Anyhoo, I’m really looking forward to Captain Marvel.
I have concerns any time a company or figurehead of a franchise calls out a specific race or gender and tells them they don't matter/ this wasn't made for you/ we don't need your kind.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I tried to read this thread, but seeing manbabies crying about SJW’s makes my eyes bleed.
Anyhoo, I’m really looking forward to Captain Marvel.
I have concerns any time a company or figurehead of a franchise calls out a specific race or gender and tells them they don't matter/ this wasn't made for you/ we don't need your kind.
I have concerns anytime people twist a comment about encouraging more women and minorities into being one about hating white men.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I tried to read this thread, but seeing manbabies crying about SJW’s makes my eyes bleed.
Anyhoo, I’m really looking forward to Captain Marvel.
Welcome to the Geek Media forum. I generally feel better about the world when I avoid it.
I can totally understand that.
I’m coming round to the idea though, that if we don’t challenge the toxic manbabies then geek forums will turn into their echo chambers. We all end up looking bad when the wider public comes to associate geek fandom with these kinds of people.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I tried to read this thread, but seeing manbabies crying about SJW’s makes my eyes bleed.
Anyhoo, I’m really looking forward to Captain Marvel.
Welcome to the Geek Media forum. I generally feel better about the world when I avoid it.
The feeling is almost certainly mutual.
"These kinds of people." Christ just listen to yourselves. You're acting like you're doing some kind of public service by trolling folk on a forum for the heinous crime of not liking the fact a bunch of talking heads are trying to turn matters of simple taste and opinion into some ridiculous litmus test for supposed deep-seated bigotries, or for preferring their escapist entertainment to allow them to actually, you know, escape from the endless garbage of real life for a couple of hours.
Lance845 wrote: Agree Formosa. Consistency would be great. I think it's because the media stirred up his twitter history that Disney felt the need to respond with the only response anyone could (read: should) expect. And in THAT regard Disney IS consistent. When these kinds of things have ever been placed on Disney's table publicly they have always had the same response. Break ties and disavow. "These do not reflect our values". Disney can be kind of gaks in that way.
They probably would have left all well enough alone if a spot light wasn't flashed onto it.
But again, there would have been nothing to put a spot light on if he was smart enough to keep things with his name on it clean.
It probably didn't help that it came on the heels of the Harvey Weinstein controversy, when there was heightened focus on the whole "this guy makes us tons of money, so we ignore the unsavory things he does" side of things. Honestly I don't think there's a lack of consistency on Disney's part. They did what all media companies do in that situation: fire the "problem" so they don't have to deal with it and hope it quietly goes away. It didn't go away this time, probably because enough people saw the irony in hiring a man for his wit to make you a couple million dollars and then firing the man for that same wit when the social perceptions turn negative. Except I'd propose social perception hadn't turned that much. You can find similar lines in a lot of stand up comic routines, but no one finds those offensive in a 40 minute spiel of off-color jokes (Justin Roiland pointed out that you find similar jokes once or twice an episode on Rick and Morty and no one complains) and enough people found the raunchy humor inoffensive enough (or maybe they just hate seeing Mike Cernovich get petty revenge) that a lot of people viewed Gunn's firing as knee jerk reactionism.
Yodhrin wrote: "These kinds of people." Christ just listen to yourselves. You're acting like you're doing some kind of public service by trolling folk on a forum for the heinous crime of not liking the fact a bunch of talking heads are trying to turn matters of simple taste and opinion into some ridiculous litmus test for supposed deep-seated bigotries, or for preferring their escapist entertainment to allow them to actually, you know, escape from the endless garbage of real life for a couple of hours.
Yodhrin, you are absolutely on point lately.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: a lot of people viewed Gunn's firing as knee jerk reactionism.
Which is all it was. And it indicates that Disney’s vaunted MCU brand might be significantly more brittle from their POV than ours.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I tried to read this thread, but seeing manbabies crying about SJW’s makes my eyes bleed.
Anyhoo, I’m really looking forward to Captain Marvel.
Welcome to the Geek Media forum. I generally feel better about the world when I avoid it.
The feeling is almost certainly mutual.
"These kinds of people." Christ just listen to yourselves. You're acting like you're doing some kind of public service by trolling folk on a forum for the heinous crime of not liking the fact a bunch of talking heads are trying to turn matters of simple taste and opinion into some ridiculous litmus test for supposed deep-seated bigotries, or for preferring their escapist entertainment to allow them to actually, you know, escape from the endless garbage of real life for a couple of hours.
Get a haud of yourselves eh.
Show me one example of real trolling and not people just expressing their displeasure at being preached to by a known bigot, how about we take her statement and change a couple of words.
“[Audiences] are not allowed enough chances to read public discourse on these films by the people that the films were made for. I do not need a 40-year-old blackchick to tell me what didn’t work for her about ‘[A] Wrinkle in Time.’ It wasn’t made for [/u]her. I want to know what it meant to white men, to biracial [u]men, to teenage white boys, to teens that are white.”
she is being a hypocrite, and thats fine, thats her choice and personal opinion here but I am not a fan of sexism or racism regardless of source.
then you get this great statement
"It was, like, my superpower. This could be my form of activism: doing a film that can play all over the world and be in more places than I can be physically."
So here we have a person who is known to take part in a very unpopular and fringe politics, pushing said politics and outwardly stating it, and on the other side of the coin we have the vast majority of people who are just tired of it all and want it out of our [/u]escapism[u], but no, we should be forced to watch it, we dont get a say and we should shut up because "we are white men, and she doesnt care about our opinions"
As I said before, they made it about this, not the public, so normal people reacting to it is to be expected, I am sure we would both agree on this at least, leave the political grandstanding out of movies unless its internally consistent with the movie.
Formosa, Yodhrin is saying people who post here just to say “glad I avoid this place” are trolling — not the people posting here, ya know, actually on-topic about there being some red flags about this film.
Manchu wrote: Formosa, Yodhrin is saying people who post here just to say “glad I avoid this place” are trolling — not the people posting here, ya know, actually on-topic about there being some red flags about this film.
thanks manchu, I totally misunderstood that then and i apologise.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I tried to read this thread, but seeing manbabies crying about SJW’s makes my eyes bleed.
Anyhoo, I’m really looking forward to Captain Marvel.
Welcome to the Geek Media forum. I generally feel better about the world when I avoid it.
I can totally understand that.
I’m coming round to the idea though, that if we don’t challenge the toxic manbabies then geek forums will turn into their echo chambers. We all end up looking bad when the wider public comes to associate geek fandom with these kinds of people.
Are you sure you're reading *this* forum and coming to that opinion, and maybe not getting some other place confused with this one?
Manchu wrote: Which is all it was. And it indicates that Disney’s vaunted MCU brand might be significantly more brittle from their POV than ours.
I don't think they put that kind of thought into it.
They don't care about the politics, they just want to sell their product. Ignoring the controversy simply invites accusation about why they're ignoring it. Defending keeping him forces them to actually take a position with political connotations. As a matter of point, firing Gunn was the most apolitical thing Disney could do because they can just say "we don't want to be involved this isn't what we do it's not us" and pray the problem away which is the same thing ESPN does after firing the 100th sports caster to drop the N-bomb somewhere. But it strikes me as one of those "big decisions" you instantly regret but feel you can't ever afford to take back because of the lost face if you did. If the bottom line is all that matters, firing Gunn for any reason makes zero sense. You only do it because you anticipate negative reaction down the road for keeping him around that could impact the bottom line. But especially in the aftermath when it became really obvious really fast almost no one gave a damn about some raunchy jokes from a decade ago, I feel like some Disney execs were just kind of kicking themselves because they employed the nuclear option to avoid controversy when they didn't have to.
Bright side. Maybe he can pull Suicide Squad out of that dumpster fire
I’d say that we’re leaving the era of knee jerk reactions. A lot of public figures and companies are beginning to remember that the public has a short attention span. Just wait a few news cycles. Disney acted hysterically in firing Gunn. It was a really terrible mistake.
No doubt it was a colossal mistake. Apparently the actual call was made by a third stringer looking to show initiative while the guys in charge were unavailable, but its still easily one of the biggest missteps in the MCU.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I tried to read this thread, but seeing manbabies crying about SJW’s makes my eyes bleed.
Anyhoo, I’m really looking forward to Captain Marvel.
Welcome to the Geek Media forum. I generally feel better about the world when I avoid it.
I can totally understand that.
I’m coming round to the idea though, that if we don’t challenge the toxic manbabies then geek forums will turn into their echo chambers. We all end up looking bad when the wider public comes to associate geek fandom with these kinds of people.
Are you sure you're reading *this* forum and coming to that opinion, and maybe not getting some other place confused with this one?
Because it seems like you are doing that?
No, he's talking about this one, where the same people turn up again and again to claim that sexism and bigotry doesn't happen, no one should talk about it, no one cares anyway and it's all the fault of people who don't want it anyway.
Its a constant of this forum, even if its a relatively small number of posters. And pretty noticeable since at least the Force Awakens threads.
Honestly some people seem to think that the only genuine racism and sexism is against the poor, misunderstood white male.
OR
Some people don't immediately blame the white male when things don't go swimmingly? The Ghostbusters fiasco should have shown you that.
. The ghostbusters fiasco showed me that when a bad script meets bad direction, a bigoted chunk of the geek community will blame and attack the actresses.
Or claim the movie would be irredeemably bad because they saw women in the trailer in lead roles.
And then pretend it was all a conspiracy to make geeks look bad
Honestly some people seem to think that the only genuine racism and sexism is against the poor, misunderstood white male.
OR
Some people don't immediately blame the white male when things don't go swimmingly? The Ghostbusters fiasco should have shown you that.
When the Ghostbusters tried to blame the failure of their crappy film on misogyny, I thought it was hilarious. Never understood why anyone got bend out of shape about it.
Honestly some people seem to think that the only genuine racism and sexism is against the poor, misunderstood white male.
OR
Some people don't immediately blame the white male when things don't go swimmingly? The Ghostbusters fiasco should have shown you that.
I know right, how dare we demand interlectual consistency from these people, that, as public figures who use their platforms to advocate for a set of ideals, they adhere to those ideals and not target one group over another based solely on inalienable differences, I am pretty sure we have a word for that
its not like we have all said pretty much the same thing, leave the silly stuff out of our entertainment, but somehow that translates to a few here as "I hates wamans waaaa waaa"
Best thing in this thread so far though, how polite everyone has been, well done Dakka.
...nah, you're both still seemingly confused, but it's all good!
I think Captain Marvel will do just fine, and be a fun adventure flick, and the minority who are off doing fringe things will be largely ignored, just like they always are.
It will be interesting to see how this plays into Endgame, and if SLJ's potential spoilers actually pan out, or maybe he was just a bit confused about Carol's power set!
Alpharius wrote: ...nah, you're both still seemingly confused, but it's all good!
I think Captain Marvel will do just fine, and be a fun adventure flick, and the minority who are off doing fringe things will be largely ignored, just like they always are.
It will be interesting to see how this plays into Endgame, and if SLJ's potential spoilers actually pan out, or maybe he was just a bit confused about Carol's power set!
Like i said before i think it will do well too, I hope it does to be honest, I like marvel and marvel movies and I hope with the introduction of captain marvel we eventually get the rogue storyline with her, I would bloody love that as Rogue and Beast are my favourite marvel characters.
Anyone wonder if after end game that they will introduce the Xmen, it would be a good excuse to introduce mutants after the reverse snap or however they reset the universe.
Anyone wonder if after end game that they will introduce the Xmen, it would be a good excuse to introduce mutants after the reverse snap or however they reset the universe.
I think it could be quite a few years before we see MCU Xmen simply because I assume they have the next few years already planned and in development. Wasn’t there a lot of talk about the next phase concentrating on the Cosmic side of things?
On the other hand, they could start to introduce Xmen characters in other character’s movies. I’d be up for Storm in the next Black Panther movie
AegisGrimm wrote: Mostly nerds love to see stuff fail (desperately) through some sociopathic need to see the world burn to feel better about themselves.
For some, Captain Marvel HAS to suck, so they can be in the "in" crowd complaining about it.
As for myself, I assume it will be a fun to watch but horribly by-the-books "hero's journey", just like Black Panther. Black Panther was awesome to watch, but you could see every plot twist a mile off. Its the same as how Dr Strange and Tony Stark went through the EXACT same personal journey, despite being awesomely fun to watch.
I personally don't care if Cpt. marvel is a woman, as long as I have fun in the theatre (though I love strong female leads).
Where the heck do you get this "nerds love to see stuff fail" bull droppings?
I've been a nerd for almost fifty years now and the moments I love the most are moments of SUCCESS. When the rebels beat the Empire, that was the best SW moment. When Kirk beat Khan, that was the best ST moment. When NASA launched the Space Shuttle, it was their shining moment in my memory (technically I was around for the last couple lunar missions but I was too young to remember them). And when the Columbia failed... that was NOT a moment I loved. When the Enterprise D crashed and burned, that was not a moment I loved.
When everything the Rebels fought and died to accomplish was destroyed, that was not a moment I loved.
That may be part and parcel of the younger generation, but I doubt it. It seems to be just you that loves to see the fandom burn with your accusations, not us.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: See, I think there is no point in continuing to think the small group who gets pissy about this stuff have as much power or sway as they seem to think.
PROVE that TLJ had more impact on Solo then the release time between 2 other monster releases, the lack of promotion, the poor production reports, and general audiences just not giving a gak about a prequel where we find out how han got his gun and ship?
You can't. And you never will.
I expect that the sales numbers for IX will tell the tale one way or the other. If it bombs, then that's a pretty good sign you're wrong. And if it succeeds with TFA success, then I admit that we were wrong.
Of course, there's always the middle ground - not TFA success but not Solo failure, and leave both of us wrong...
Anyone wonder if after end game that they will introduce the Xmen, it would be a good excuse to introduce mutants after the reverse snap or however they reset the universe.
I think it could be quite a few years before we see MCU Xmen simply because I assume they have the next few years already planned and in development. Wasn’t there a lot of talk about the next phase concentrating on the Cosmic side of things?
On the other hand, they could start to introduce Xmen characters in other character’s movies. I’d be up for Storm in the next Black Panther movie
That would be bloody ace, they could keep halley berry possibly too, she isnt too old yet is she? i think she would still fit, imagine a film with the white wolf, storm and tchalla, I would watch it.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I tried to read this thread, but seeing manbabies crying about SJW’s makes my eyes bleed.
Anyhoo, I’m really looking forward to Captain Marvel.
I have concerns any time a company or figurehead of a franchise calls out a specific race or gender and tells them they don't matter/ this wasn't made for you/ we don't need your kind.
I have concerns anytime people twist a comment about encouraging more women and minorities into being one about hating white men.
As do I, which is why KK's comments about not needing the white male fanbase is... concerning.
That would be bloody ace, they could keep halley berry possibly too, she isnt too old yet is she? i think she would still fit, imagine a film with the white wolf, storm and tchalla, I would watch it.
My ideas about what the Xmen should be like are based on only have read the comic for a few years in the late 80’s, but I never liked Halle Berry as Storm. I think she is too old now too (I’m certain she’s over 50). I think the best thing the MCU can do with Xmen is totally reboot it with actors who’ll be able to play those characters for the next 10 years.
who would they get for wolverine and professor X though, stewart and jackman.... pretty big shoes to fill, and i know macalvoy has done an ok job, but he is no stewart
Automatically Appended Next Post: oh, that girl who played X - 23. she could take over for wolverine ?
Formosa wrote: who would they get for wolverine and professor X though, stewart and jackman.... pretty big shoes to fill, and i know macalvoy has done an ok job, but he is no stewart
Automatically Appended Next Post: oh, that girl who played X - 23. she could take over for wolverine ?
I still like the idea of Tom Hardy as Wolverine. I know he’s Venom, but if Josh Brolin can be both Thanos and Cable ...
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I tried to read this thread, but seeing manbabies crying about SJW’s makes my eyes bleed.
Anyhoo, I’m really looking forward to Captain Marvel.
Welcome to the Geek Media forum. I generally feel better about the world when I avoid it.
I can totally understand that.
I’m coming round to the idea though, that if we don’t challenge the toxic manbabies then geek forums will turn into their echo chambers. We all end up looking bad when the wider public comes to associate geek fandom with these kinds of people.
Are you sure you're reading *this* forum and coming to that opinion, and maybe not getting some other place confused with this one?
Because it seems like you are doing that?
No, he's talking about this one, where the same people turn up again and again to claim that sexism and bigotry doesn't happen, no one should talk about it, no one cares anyway and it's all the fault of people who don't want it anyway.
Its a constant of this forum, even if its a relatively small number of posters. And pretty noticeable since at least the Force Awakens threads.
I'll bite. Who?
Name names, if that's your perception of the situation. Because what I've seen is that we have people decrying bad movies as bad movies... and others accusing them of racism and sexism because they don't like a bad movie that happens to feature a female or non-white major character.
Nobody here has called anyone here sexist or racist because they didnt like the movie. I have never seen that happen. Dig up a qoute please? I know you guys like to SAY it happens a lot but i have never actually seen it.
I HAVE seen manchu, you, yodhrim, jonwang, etc... Claim that nobody was hating on ghost busters before we saw any frames of it when all we knew was that the cast would be female (but not who they were yet), or that it wasn't racism/sexism when people got their accounts hacked, or character profiles changed to racial slurs, or so on and so forth.
The very moment anyone mentions that racists or sexists did a thing you immediately claim that your being called that for disliking the film. Again, unless YOU are lumping YOURSELF in with those people nobody is talking about you.
Honestly some people seem to think that the only genuine racism and sexism is against the poor, misunderstood white male.
And some seem to think that having a non-white, non-male lead makes a bad movie somehow good, and if we disagree it makes us villains instead of merely expressing an opinion.
Honestly some people seem to think that the only genuine racism and sexism is against the poor, misunderstood white male.
OR
Some people don't immediately blame the white male when things don't go swimmingly? The Ghostbusters fiasco should have shown you that.
. The ghostbusters fiasco showed me that when a bad script meets bad direction, a bigoted chunk of the geek community will blame and attack the actresses.
Or claim the movie would be irredeemably bad because they saw women in the trailer in lead roles.
And then pretend it was all a conspiracy to make geeks look bad
Name names. Who here said that?
I don't blame the actors or actresses for anything beyond bad acting. Having not seen the Ghostbusters fiasco I can't rate their acting.
Now the garbage that was TLJ, that I saw. I do not blame the actors and actresses for that garbage. To me they did the best they could with the garbage they were given. The failures of the movie are not their fault. The fault lies with the writing and directors, no one else.
And who was that director? Rian Johnson. In case y'all missed it, a WHITE MALE.
So who do I, the 'sexist, racist' white male blame for the garbage that is TLJ? Another white male.
How am I now the villain for disliking another white male?
Vulcan wrote: I'm hopeful for it too, but I don't like SJW stuff in my brainless entertainment, and calling me a manbaby for that rather.... irritates me.
Keep the SJW stuff for movies like Roots and The Color Purple. Serious messages for serious movies WHERE THEY BELONG.
It's remarkable that this is a thread about a Marvel Comics IP and you're saying this. Are you aware that the whole concept of mutants are a metaphor and have been since 1963? That the "Ms. Marvel" name itself, as well as the themes in the comic, were born of and constantly referenced feminism in the late 70s?
Marvel comics have always had political messages and analogies (well, at least since the silver age). If you want to avoid them, better stick to Garfield.
LunarSol wrote: No doubt it was a colossal mistake. Apparently the actual call was made by a third stringer looking to show initiative while the guys in charge were unavailable, but its still easily one of the biggest missteps in the MCU.
I don't think I believe this. I mean, I'm not saying you're a liar - not at all - I mean that it just doesn't sound plausible to me. I feel like when you have franchises this large, decisions that big don't get made by third stringers regardless of how ambitious they are.
If anything, I think what you are saying sounds like a trial balloon for backing out and rehiring him, more than the actual facts.
Vulcan wrote: I'm hopeful for it too, but I don't like SJW stuff in my brainless entertainment, and calling me a manbaby for that rather.... irritates me.
Keep the SJW stuff for movies like Roots and The Color Purple. Serious messages for serious movies WHERE THEY BELONG.
It's remarkable that this is a thread about a Marvel Comics IP and you're saying this. Are you aware that the whole concept of mutants are a metaphor and have been since 1963? That the "Ms. Marvel" name itself, as well as the themes in the comic, were born of and constantly referenced feminism in the late 70s?
Marvel comics have always had political messages and analogies (well, at least since the silver age). If you want to avoid them, better stick to Garfield.
If you can't see the difference between something being a subtext within the movie and being the ENTIRETY of the movie, then you never WILL understand his point of view. The condescending Garfield crack tells me you don't WANT to see his point of view.
Vulcan wrote: I'm hopeful for it too, but I don't like SJW stuff in my brainless entertainment, and calling me a manbaby for that rather.... irritates me.
Keep the SJW stuff for movies like Roots and The Color Purple. Serious messages for serious movies WHERE THEY BELONG.
It's remarkable that this is a thread about a Marvel Comics IP and you're saying this. Are you aware that the whole concept of mutants are a metaphor and have been since 1963? That the "Ms. Marvel" name itself, as well as the themes in the comic, were born of and constantly referenced feminism in the late 70s?
Marvel comics have always had political messages and analogies (well, at least since the silver age). If you want to avoid them, better stick to Garfield.
LunarSol wrote: No doubt it was a colossal mistake. Apparently the actual call was made by a third stringer looking to show initiative while the guys in charge were unavailable, but its still easily one of the biggest missteps in the MCU.
I don't think I believe this. I mean, I'm not saying you're a liar - not at all - I mean that it just doesn't sound plausible to me. I feel like when you have franchises this large, decisions that big don't get made by third stringers regardless of how ambitious they are.
If anything, I think what you are saying sounds like a trial balloon for backing out and rehiring him, more than the actual facts.
Yeah it was and it humanised the bad guys to the point that even though they are evil, you can feel sorry for them, they did a great job of showing "both sides" even though one side was clearly the bad one, take a look at Magnito, a extremist terrorist who is a mutant supremacist, but you still felt for him in spite of that due to his suffering, you could see what led him down the wrong path, Cyclops is another good example of this.
That is a faaaaaar cry from what the comics have now, and the industry is suffering for it, so much so that indie comics outsold mainstream ones.
Vulcan wrote: I'm hopeful for it too, but I don't like SJW stuff in my brainless entertainment, and calling me a manbaby for that rather.... irritates me.
Keep the SJW stuff for movies like Roots and The Color Purple. Serious messages for serious movies WHERE THEY BELONG.
It's remarkable that this is a thread about a Marvel Comics IP and you're saying this. Are you aware that the whole concept of mutants are a metaphor and have been since 1963? That the "Ms. Marvel" name itself, as well as the themes in the comic, were born of and constantly referenced feminism in the late 70s?
Marvel comics have always had political messages and analogies (well, at least since the silver age). If you want to avoid them, better stick to Garfield.
If you can't see the difference between something being a subtext within the movie and being the ENTIRETY of the movie, then you never WILL understand his point of view. The condescending Garfield crack tells me you don't WANT to see his point of view.
Man, I don't even know what this means. Maybe if a few more words were CAPITALIZED. Who suggested that anything we were discussing involved subtext vs being the entire movie? That is literally a thing you invented and no one else was debating.
I think Vulcan's point was clear - he doesn't want any references to modern political or social realities in "brainless" escapist comics. He didn't leave room for the subtext or percentage argument you invented. His argument is genuinely bizarre since Marvel Comics specifically have always touched on those theme, as opposed to an actual brainless medium such as garfield or what have you.
Vulcan wrote: I'm hopeful for it too, but I don't like SJW stuff in my brainless entertainment, and calling me a manbaby for that rather.... irritates me.
Keep the SJW stuff for movies like Roots and The Color Purple. Serious messages for serious movies WHERE THEY BELONG.
It's remarkable that this is a thread about a Marvel Comics IP and you're saying this. Are you aware that the whole concept of mutants are a metaphor and have been since 1963? That the "Ms. Marvel" name itself, as well as the themes in the comic, were born of and constantly referenced feminism in the late 70s?
Marvel comics have always had political messages and analogies (well, at least since the silver age). If you want to avoid them, better stick to Garfield.
All right, that's a fair criticism. You're right, Marvel has always had political undertones. The anti-mutant discrimination and fear has always been a veiled metaphor for racism.
But one should note that the anti-human forces have always been portrayed as villains every bit as much as the anti-mutant forces. The X-men are the heroes because they stand against racism full stop. Anti-human AND anti-mutant. Anti-woman AND anti-man. Anti-black, anti-Asian, anti-Indian, anti-Mexican... and anti-white.
Tearing down one does not make the other strong. Raising everyone to the same level of respect together makes everyone strong.
If professor x is martin luther king jr then magneto is malcom x.
He isnt a supremesist. He is angry and thinks violence is the only language the oppressor understands.
Thats not "both sides". Its 2 ideologies fighting for the same thing. Trask and the sentinal program is "the other side". The purifiers. Weapon x. THOSE are your supremesit analogs.
Formosa wrote: That is a faaaaaar cry from what the comics have now, and the industry is suffering for it, so much so that indie comics outsold mainstream ones.
I haven't read a great many modern comics in the last 10 years or so, so I'll have to take your word for that. I've read some stuff obviously, but nowhere near as much as back in the 90s. And what I have read recently has been (what I think could be called) Indie stuff - a lot of Image stuff.
Formosa wrote: who would they get for wolverine and professor X though, stewart and jackman.... pretty big shoes to fill, and i know macalvoy has done an ok job, but he is no stewart
Automatically Appended Next Post: oh, that girl who played X - 23. she could take over for wolverine ?
I still like the idea of Tom Hardy as Wolverine. I know he’s Venom, but if Josh Brolin can be both Thanos and Cable ...
I never thought of Tom hardy as wolverine but I could see it.
If professor x is martin luther king jr then magneto is malcom x.
He isnt a supremesist. He is angry and thinks violence is the only language the oppressor understands.
Thats not "both sides". Its 2 ideologies fighting for the same thing. Trask and the sentinal program is "the other side". The purifiers. Weapon x. THOSE are your supremesit analogs.
I never said white supremacist, I said mutant supremacist, and he absolutely is, in fact if we used today's parlance he would be a mutant ethno nationalist, genosha succinctly proves this.
The new age comics, specifically Marvel, suffer for being crap because they are more worried about making sure every nationality has a hero than they are about telling stories about heroes who rise up from their trials and hardships to not only be super heroes, but also be moral heroes that real life people can aspire to be like.
I don’t care that “super smart teen is gifted the iron man costume cuz so smart and awesome”, I care about “person is a warmonger who gets chest caved in by own weapons and builds a protective suit with a reactor to keep heart from shredding in chest cavity, and decides to use said armor for good”. You tell me which is a more compelling story, leaving gender and race out of it, like I just did in the description. One of those is a far better story than the other.
In all honesty, the only thing Marvel really has going for it now IS the MCU.
If professor x is martin luther king jr then magneto is malcom x.
He isnt a supremesist. He is angry and thinks violence is the only language the oppressor understands.
Probably depends on iterations of the character.
There are definitely times where Magneto went right into the "mutants are superior to feeble humans" barrel. And I'd point out that in his early years Malcom X wasn't that far off from advocating black supremacy, at least until he quite the Nation of Islam.
Drifting off topic, but considering Carol Danvers is a Chris Claremont character... A little word on "subtlety" and "undertones."
Spoilering due to image size. These are from a freely available preview pages.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I tried to read this thread, but seeing manbabies crying about SJW’s makes my eyes bleed.
Anyhoo, I’m really looking forward to Captain Marvel.
I have concerns any time a company or figurehead of a franchise calls out a specific race or gender and tells them they don't matter/ this wasn't made for you/ we don't need your kind.
I have concerns anytime people twist a comment about encouraging more women and minorities into being one about hating white men.
Formosa has all ready broken down her statement and why it was sexist/racist. Something he forgot to mention though was that she followed it up with a "I'm not sexist/racist, but....." comment. It's something that I usually here before a good-ole-boy makes a wonderful comment about inner city youth.
If professor x is martin luther king jr then magneto is malcom x.
He isnt a supremesist. He is angry and thinks violence is the only language the oppressor understands.
Thats not "both sides". Its 2 ideologies fighting for the same thing. Trask and the sentinal program is "the other side". The purifiers. Weapon x. THOSE are your supremesit analogs.
You're right. In the Marvel racism analog, Magneto is not the white supremacist. He's the opposite number, the one who would suppress the white in favor of the non-white. He wants to lord over the white just like the white lorded over him. To be the master and have slaves of his own.
Which is why he is ALSO a villain, and Professor X - the one who wants all sides to be equal, who wants to respect and be respected equally, where there are no slaves or masters, only PEOPLE - is the hero.
Magneto is, in my opinion, the pinnacle of a tragic villain, the man is evil objectively but over the years the horrible things done to him and his brutal responses, I wonder if any of us wouldn't have the same reaction with his kind of power, and professor X, well, he is also a villain for completely different reasons, forcing your mind onto others isn't something good people do.
Ouze wrote: I don't think anyone actually meant to imply Magneto was a white supremacist analogy, I think that was a crossed wire\miscommunication.
Given that Magneto was sent to the Nazi Death Camps as a child, no he's not a white supremacist. He'e the opposite.
And no, Magneto is not evil in any reasonable sense. Magneto has *always* been characterized as "good", because his entire motivation is to unselfishly protect and defend mutantkind from the existential threat that humanity repeatedly brings (e.g. "X-termination").
Doom is very similar, wanting to bring the actual Utopia that is Latveria to the rest of the world, in order to forestall the collapse of humanity:
Spoiler:
To characterize either Magneto or Doom as "evil" in a classical sense, displays a shallow understanding of both the characters and very concepts of "evil" and good.
Yeah, for a guy who claimed using his powers to mind control people was deeply evil and he wouldn't ever do it, from what I recall he actually did it with surprising regularity.
Formosa wrote: Magneto is, in my opinion, the pinnacle of a tragic villain, the man is evil objectively but over the years the horrible things done to him and his brutal responses, I wonder if any of us wouldn't have the same reaction with his kind of power, and professor X, well, he is also a villain for completely different reasons, forcing your mind onto others isn't something good people do.
I'll grant you that too, but I assume the whole 'forcing your mind onto others' thing is something from the Rusty Iron age, after I quit reading comics in general.
The Silver and Bronze Age Professor X would not have done so, regardless of whatever retcons have been written about him since.
Its important to note that megnetos extremism is a response. Mags didnt start out going mutantsbare the best and we should rule.
He was on prof xs side when they started out.
Then he saw humanity act like the nazis and he struck back twice as hard. Its not GOOD what he does. But its not fair to paint him as a supremesist either. Hes lashing out at injustice in a way that escalates the conflict but hes STILL lashing out at injustice.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Given that Magneto was sent to the Nazi Death Camps as a child, no he's not a white supremacist. He'e the opposite.
Sigh. I'm not the one who thought he was a white supremacist, I have been reading the X-men since Ms Marvel became Binary. I know Magneto's backstory very well.
Someone else seemed to think that argument was made. I was trying to be helpful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: But its not fair to paint him as a supremesist either. Hes lashing out at injustice in a way that escalates the conflict but hes STILL lashing out at injustice.
I dunno man, while I empathize with how he got where he is, trying to murder everyone on the planet without a mutant gene multiple times feels pretty supremacist-y to me.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, for a guy who claimed using his powers to mind control people was deeply evil and he wouldn't ever do it, from what I recall he actually did it with surprising regularity.
At least Magneto was honest.
How long had he mindlocked Jean Grey, again? He first did it to her in her childhood
JohnHwangDD wrote: Given that Magneto was sent to the Nazi Death Camps as a child, no he's not a white supremacist. He'e the opposite.
Sigh. I'm not the one who thought he was a white supremacist, I have been reading the X-men since Ms Marvel became Binary. I know Magneto's backstory very well.
Someone else seemed to think that argument was made. I was trying to be helpful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: But its not fair to paint him as a supremesist either. Hes lashing out at injustice in a way that escalates the conflict but hes STILL lashing out at injustice.
I dunno man, while I empathize with how he got where he is, trying to murder everyone on the planet without a mutant gene multiple times feels pretty supremacist-y to me.
I was clarifying for those who weren't aware.
Magneto is frequently engaged in the equivalent of World War X against those who would exterminate all mutants, as it is an existential threat, lethal response is justified.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I tried to read this thread, but seeing manbabies crying about SJW’s makes my eyes bleed.
Anyhoo, I’m really looking forward to Captain Marvel.
I have concerns any time a company or figurehead of a franchise calls out a specific race or gender and tells them they don't matter/ this wasn't made for you/ we don't need your kind.
I have concerns anytime people twist a comment about encouraging more women and minorities into being one about hating white men.
Formosa has all ready broken down her statement and why it was sexist/racist. Something he forgot to mention though was that she followed it up with a "I'm not sexist/racist, but....." comment. It's something that I usually here before a good-ole-boy makes a wonderful comment about inner city youth.
Formosa’s breakdown is opinion not fact. I disagree. That’s my opinion, not fact.
What she was calling for was more diversity in film criticism to better reflect the diversity of the audience. There’s more film critics than ever because there’s more media than ever and most of them are utterly terrible. It’s a rare critic who is actually able to make an objective critique of a movie, divorced from their own preferences. The best critics know this and make a point of acknowledging it in their reviews, but the vast majority does not.
I think that’s a problem. It’s not a big problem. It’s not a problem I lose sleep over, but it is an issue. That’s what Brie Larson was trying to get across, in admittedly a poorly expressed way.
The fact that this got twisted into Brie Larson hates white men says more about some white men than it does about Brie Larson. Again, my option not fact.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I tried to read this thread, but seeing manbabies crying about SJW’s makes my eyes bleed.
Anyhoo, I’m really looking forward to Captain Marvel.
I have concerns any time a company or figurehead of a franchise calls out a specific race or gender and tells them they don't matter/ this wasn't made for you/ we don't need your kind.
I have concerns anytime people twist a comment about encouraging more women and minorities into being one about hating white men.
Formosa has all ready broken down her statement and why it was sexist/racist. Something he forgot to mention though was that she followed it up with a "I'm not sexist/racist, but....." comment. It's something that I usually here before a good-ole-boy makes a wonderful comment about inner city youth.
Formosa’s breakdown is opinion not fact. I disagree. That’s my opinion, not fact.
What she was calling for was more diversity in film criticism to better reflect the diversity of the audience. There’s more film critics than ever because there’s more media than ever and most of them are utterly terrible. It’s a rare critic who is actually able to make an objective critique of a movie, divorced from their own preferences. The best critics know this and make a point of acknowledging it in their reviews, but the vast majority does not.
I think that’s a problem. It’s not a big problem. It’s not a problem I lose sleep over, but it is an issue. That’s what Brie Larson was trying to get across, in admittedly a poorly expressed way.
The fact that this got twisted into Brie Larson hates white men says more about some white men than it does about Brie Larson. Again, my option not fact.
If it was simply poorly worded, then it was EXTREMLY poorly worded. If a critic is unbiased it shouldn't matter what race, gender, or sexual orientation they are. Saying "white men, this movie wasn't for you so I don't need to hear your opinions about it", at the very least sounds racist.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I tried to read this thread, but seeing manbabies crying about SJW’s makes my eyes bleed.
Anyhoo, I’m really looking forward to Captain Marvel.
I have concerns any time a company or figurehead of a franchise calls out a specific race or gender and tells them they don't matter/ this wasn't made for you/ we don't need your kind.
I have concerns anytime people twist a comment about encouraging more women and minorities into being one about hating white men.
Formosa has all ready broken down her statement and why it was sexist/racist. Something he forgot to mention though was that she followed it up with a "I'm not sexist/racist, but....." comment. It's something that I usually here before a good-ole-boy makes a wonderful comment about inner city youth.
Formosa’s breakdown is opinion not fact. I disagree. That’s my opinion, not fact.
What she was calling for was more diversity in film criticism to better reflect the diversity of the audience. There’s more film critics than ever because there’s more media than ever and most of them are utterly terrible. It’s a rare critic who is actually able to make an objective critique of a movie, divorced from their own preferences. The best critics know this and make a point of acknowledging it in their reviews, but the vast majority does not.
I think that’s a problem. It’s not a big problem. It’s not a problem I lose sleep over, but it is an issue. That’s what Brie Larson was trying to get across, in admittedly a poorly expressed way.
The fact that this got twisted into Brie Larson hates white men says more about some white men than it does about Brie Larson. Again, my option not fact.
I can see her point, even though it was poorly expressed and has since been twisted.
That's not the problem. The problem that seems to come around is when I say 'I didn't like this movie, it's poorly written', and the response is 'but it stars a woman, YOU MUST BE SEXIST!'
No, no one comes out and says it here.
And yet my posts are often followed by posts talking about sexist, racist manbabies... what am I SUPPOSED to think?
I agree with MonkeyBallistic. I think she was stating a fairly harmless opinion, but worded it in a way that was just terrible. The idea that certain media is "for" certain audiences is not new. For example, I don't believe I could tell the intended audience of The Favorite whether or not they would enjoy the movie. Ditto the Medea films and their audience. There was a thread on Dakka where Manchu described reading a book that wasn't written "for him", and if I recall he did not enjoy it very much. The idea that critics who are outside of a film's intended audience have poor opinions of that film is not contraversial.
You wouldn't want some Marvel fan critiquing your DC movie after all.
Well don't fight the idea that sexist racist man babies cause trouble and people wont talk to you about it. I have seen and been a part of many discussions where people said "i dont like this" and thats been fine.
If what you are talking about is say... Rey, then i believe my contribution was whats the difference between her and luke?
If you dont like it then you dont like it. Cool. Fine. If you think shes an unbelievable mary sue in a franchise of unbelievable mary sues then there are questions to ask and discusions to be had.
No male lead in a marvel movie has caught gak for not smiling and being "wooden" in their teaser trailer. And yet cap marvel...
Im not saying you said those things specifically (i honestly cant remember who said what at this point). Simply that its something thats happenes here.
LunarSol wrote: No doubt it was a colossal mistake. Apparently the actual call was made by a third stringer looking to show initiative while the guys in charge were unavailable, but its still easily one of the biggest missteps in the MCU.
I don't think I believe this. I mean, I'm not saying you're a liar - not at all - I mean that it just doesn't sound plausible to me. I feel like when you have franchises this large, decisions that big don't get made by third stringers regardless of how ambitious they are.
If anything, I think what you are saying sounds like a trial balloon for backing out and rehiring him, more than the actual facts.
Third stringer probably isn't the right phrase. What I meant to say was more to the effect that it sounds like neither Kevin Feige or Bob Iger were involved in the decision and it was made while both were unavailable. Realistically it was probably someone between them given the direction blame has been deflected. In any case, every version of what happens comes across as a rash decision at a corporate level that only writes in ink.
I think James Gunn is ultimately going to get the GOTG franchise back. If Mel Gibson gets a wholly-unearned redemption tour, I would think the director of an 1.6B franchise with far lesser transgressions will somehow find a way back into the fold.
Lance845 wrote: Well don't fight the idea that sexist racist man babies cause trouble and people wont talk to you about it. I have seen and been a part of many discussions where people said "i dont like this" and thats been fine.
If what you are talking about is say... Rey, then i believe my contribution was whats the difference between her and luke?
If you dont like it then you dont like it. Cool. Fine. If you think shes an unbelievable mary sue in a franchise of unbelievable mary sues then there are questions to ask and discusions to be had.
No male lead in a marvel movie has caught gak for not smiling and being "wooden" in their teaser trailer. And yet cap marvel...
Im not saying you said those things specifically (i honestly cant remember who said what at this point). Simply that its something thats happenes here.
Are you really sure about that
Break it down, why was she told to smile more, because she looked wooden, who else was called wooden in his role....
Oh that's right, Henry cavil, who was criticized for a poor performance based on looking like they hated the role ... Ben Affleck.
Why hasn't a man in a marvel movie had this criticism ...because they didn't earn this criticism, telling her to smile is not sexist in any way shape or form, it's telling her to smile because otherwise she looks miserable, resting bitch face my sister calls it, people want people to smile, it's human nature, so much so that INFANTS develop it before they can even speak.
Ouze wrote: I think James Gunn is ultimately going to get the GOTG franchise back. If Mel Gibson gets a wholly-unearned redemption tour, I would think the director of an 1.6B franchise with far lesser transgressions will somehow find a way back into the fold.
That'd be great, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Lance845 wrote: Well don't fight the idea that sexist racist man babies cause trouble and people wont talk to you about it. I have seen and been a part of many discussions where people said "i dont like this" and thats been fine.
If what you are talking about is say... Rey, then i believe my contribution was whats the difference between her and luke?
If you dont like it then you dont like it. Cool. Fine. If you think shes an unbelievable mary sue in a franchise of unbelievable mary sues then there are questions to ask and discusions to be had.
No male lead in a marvel movie has caught gak for not smiling and being "wooden" in their teaser trailer. And yet cap marvel...
Two things here: One, the main complaint about Brie Larson was that she wasn't portraying any emotion. She looked like a Terminator in that first trailer, which is a valid criticism. Two, I did hear criticisms about the range of Edward Norton's acting ability when he played the Hulk.
Being "emotionless" isn't something that's in Robert Downy Jr.'s wheelhouse. Every time I look at him he's either smug, smiling, or occasionally gritting his teeth.
Ouze wrote: I think James Gunn is ultimately going to get the GOTG franchise back. If Mel Gibson gets a wholly-unearned redemption tour, I would think the director of an 1.6B franchise with far lesser transgressions will somehow find a way back into the fold.
To be fair, Walt Disney and Mel Gibson dislike the same people.
Ouze wrote: I think James Gunn is ultimately going to get the GOTG franchise back. If Mel Gibson gets a wholly-unearned redemption tour, I would think the director of an 1.6B franchise with far lesser transgressions will somehow find a way back into the fold.
To be fair, Walt Disney and Mel Gibson dislike the same people.
I think I am just feeling particularly burnt out on super hero movies, I have no real desire to see this movie. Not only that but I hardly have any desire anymore to see the new Spiderman, or the next Avengers movie. Though I will at the very least see the next Avengers movie in theater because Avengers has always been a "see in theater with friends" sort of movie, and I just want to see that arc end.
Lance845 wrote: You hit me and mine we hit you back twice as hard. You tried to genocide us over and over. My turn.
Lance, you nailed it. I think this is really what Magneto, the Holocaust survivor, is really all about.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I deleted a few political/religious posts that pretty cleanly detached from the context of discussing this movie or comics generally. Try to keep it at least semi-related please.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I deleted a few political/religious posts that pretty cleanly detached from the context of discussing this movie or comics generally. Try to keep it at least semi-related please.
So you kept all the “political” posts that mention the movie or the actress, but deleted the most brilliant and eloquent reply to those posts because it didn’t mention the movie?
