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.
because of you and lance i have been going through my old comics that feature magneto, this makes me happy
I am actually hoping for a little clarity with the movie within the MU, as Captain Marvel was not the most understood character on my part reading comics. However, the more people I talk to it seems she is not easily explained??? Is this true?
MDSW wrote: I am actually hoping for a little clarity with the movie within the MU, as Captain Marvel was not the most understood character on my part reading comics. However, the more people I talk to it seems she is not easily explained??? Is this true?
Her movie incarnation looks to be fairly straightforward and explained well enough.
Pilot, wrecked (wormhole?), given transfusion/powers with magic kree blood, probably brainwashed =super soldier.
The comic versions would just confuse the issue. But basically Rogue (of xmen) permanently stole her powers, she worked with shield for a bit (before/after?), went off into space with the xmen, absorbed new (even more better) powers from a binary star system, eventually lost those and various things happened later that I'm only vaguely aware of and seemed bad.
MDSW wrote: I am actually hoping for a little clarity with the movie within the MU, as Captain Marvel was not the most understood character on my part reading comics. However, the more people I talk to it seems she is not easily explained??? Is this true?
She looks like she's going to be a fairly simple character in movie form. It's just her comic history that's kind of mess; which is pretty common when a character lacks a real defining story arc, but is popular enough for a lot of authors to try, particularly if it happened before the early 2000's when comics liked to indulge in bizarre sci-fi tropes.
First off, her backstory is wrapped up in the giant legal mess that is Captain Marvel/Shazam/Miracle Man (totally worth reading into if you've got the time) with the original Mar-Vell being a character whose death no one really wants to undo and Carol herself never really having a great run that defined her character. That meant she got thrown on the Avengers which have always kind of collected characters that weren't carrying a solo series to a degree. Chris Clairemont was really fond of her, but his shot at the character was cancelled before he really got a handle on her and then she was written out of the Avengers in one of the most uncomfortable stories in the Avengers cannon.
Eventually when Chris Clairemont was busy making the X-Men the industry titan it came to be through his run, he decided to use it as an opportunity to undo that story by having Carol found powerless after being sapped by the then villainess Rogue, while also giving him the chance sort of write her again since she didn't fall under his mutant banner normally. Chris did what Chris does and she got a lot of convoluted new powers and names and stuff from different cosmic sources that muddled things further.
All you REALLY need to know about her current comic backstory is that in the alternate House of M reality, she was one of the lead heroes of that universe and when the normal reality returned, she was inspired to prove to herself she could be a top hero there as well. She's essentially been a major part of the Avengers ever since. They sometimes reference her backstory, but for the most part writers seem to be pretty happy glossing over the details and treating her like a fairly new character who has just always kind of been there.
Tbh I only really know her indirectly as a sorta-villain through the old X Men cartoons and her bromance with Jessica Jones (which was transferred to Trish for the Netflix show)
She’s one of Earth’s top heavy hitters in the comics right now. Beat the ever living crap out of Iron Man at the end of Civil War II and put him in a coma for awhile. Took Gamora weilding iirc three (?, at least two) Infinity Stones to incapacitate her in the recent Infinity War arc.
AduroT wrote: She’s one of Earth’s top heavy hitters in the comics right now. Beat the ever living crap out of Iron Man at the end of Civil War II and put him in a coma for awhile. Took Gamora weilding iirc three (?, at least two) Infinity Stones to incapacitate her in the recent Infinity War arc.
AduroT wrote: She’s one of Earth’s top heavy hitters in the comics right now. Beat the ever living crap out of Iron Man at the end of Civil War II and put him in a coma for awhile. Took Gamora weilding iirc three (?, at least two) Infinity Stones to incapacitate her in the recent Infinity War arc.
Gamora is also C-tier power level.
I wouldn't say that. I wouldn't call her an a lister like the most powerful mutants and gak, but she could wipe the floor with most people on earth. With even 1 infinity gem that becomes something drastically different. Needing 2 says a lot. Since a regular person with 2 could probably just wipe 99% of the characters from the face of the earth.
Yes, but shes always been on the lower to mid tier of cosmic class characters.
If Quasar, Adam Warlock and Silver Surfer are the top tiers shes a step bellow. I would never put her up there with the power cosmic but shes definitely holding off many warships on her own. She could probably overpower Nova fairly easily even when he had the full undivided power of the Nova Corps (because he was the last one).
Dr Strange or maybe Thor might be the only cinematic characters that could actually win a fight against her but not in a direct confrontation. Strange only through round about deceit and out smarting her. Hulk is stronger (cause he always is) but she could out maneuver and outsmart him easily enough.
Since you mentioned Nova, thats a movie I'd kinda like to see once the fatigue I'm feeling wears down.
Plus you know, when it wears down I imagine Id be looking forward to this one. But as is, Im sure it will be good, as most Marvel movies have been, just whoo boy I dont know how many more of the by the numbers intros I can handle.
Lance845 wrote: Yes, but shes always been on the lower to mid tier of cosmic class characters.
If Quasar, Adam Warlock and Silver Surfer are the top tiers shes a step bellow. I would never put her up there with the power cosmic but shes definitely holding off many warships on her own. She could probably overpower Nova fairly easily even when he had the full undivided power of the Nova Corps (because he was the last one).
Dr Strange or maybe Thor might be the only cinematic characters that could actually win a fight against her but not in a direct confrontation. Strange only through round about deceit and out smarting her. Hulk is stronger (cause he always is) but she could out maneuver and outsmart him easily enough.
Pretty much this. She is strong but she is nowhere near the best, even from Earth. Sentry and Black Bolt would mop her up and there are a lot of mutants *cough*Rogue*cough* that really take her down. Strange could magic his way around her like it was nothing. Add in her awful weakness for being mind controlled and she really shouldn't be trusted near the infinity gauntlet or Thanos. I am still baffled by this idea she is the savior.
Lance845 wrote: Yes, but shes always been on the lower to mid tier of cosmic class characters.
If Quasar, Adam Warlock and Silver Surfer are the top tiers shes a step bellow. I would never put her up there with the power cosmic but shes definitely holding off many warships on her own. She could probably overpower Nova fairly easily even when he had the full undivided power of the Nova Corps (because he was the last one).
Dr Strange or maybe Thor might be the only cinematic characters that could actually win a fight against her but not in a direct confrontation. Strange only through round about deceit and out smarting her. Hulk is stronger (cause he always is) but she could out maneuver and outsmart him easily enough.
Pretty much this. She is strong but she is nowhere near the best, even from Earth. Sentry and Black Bolt would mop her up and there are a lot of mutants *cough*Rogue*cough* that really take her down. Strange could magic his way around her like it was nothing. Add in her awful weakness for being mind controlled and she really shouldn't be trusted near the infinity gauntlet or Thanos. I am still baffled by this idea she is the savior.
I think its gonna be a bait and switch, they push that its gonna be captain marvel with all he media etc. and when it comes right down it that last second...... she dies.... Howard the duck comes running in and haymakers thanos saving the day.
Lance845 wrote: Yes, but shes always been on the lower to mid tier of cosmic class characters.
If Quasar, Adam Warlock and Silver Surfer are the top tiers shes a step bellow. I would never put her up there with the power cosmic but shes definitely holding off many warships on her own. She could probably overpower Nova fairly easily even when he had the full undivided power of the Nova Corps (because he was the last one).
Dr Strange or maybe Thor might be the only cinematic characters that could actually win a fight against her but not in a direct confrontation. Strange only through round about deceit and out smarting her. Hulk is stronger (cause he always is) but she could out maneuver and outsmart him easily enough.
Pretty much this. She is strong but she is nowhere near the best, even from Earth. Sentry and Black Bolt would mop her up and there are a lot of mutants *cough*Rogue*cough* that really take her down. Strange could magic his way around her like it was nothing. Add in her awful weakness for being mind controlled and she really shouldn't be trusted near the infinity gauntlet or Thanos. I am still baffled by this idea she is the savior.
If you gonna talk about the absolute Strongest earth has to offer, you need to mention Squirrel Girl.
Lance845 wrote: Yes, but shes always been on the lower to mid tier of cosmic class characters.
If Quasar, Adam Warlock and Silver Surfer are the top tiers shes a step bellow. I would never put her up there with the power cosmic but shes definitely holding off many warships on her own. She could probably overpower Nova fairly easily even when he had the full undivided power of the Nova Corps (because he was the last one).
Dr Strange or maybe Thor might be the only cinematic characters that could actually win a fight against her but not in a direct confrontation. Strange only through round about deceit and out smarting her. Hulk is stronger (cause he always is) but she could out maneuver and outsmart him easily enough.
Pretty much this. She is strong but she is nowhere near the best, even from Earth. Sentry and Black Bolt would mop her up and there are a lot of mutants *cough*Rogue*cough* that really take her down. Strange could magic his way around her like it was nothing. Add in her awful weakness for being mind controlled and she really shouldn't be trusted near the infinity gauntlet or Thanos. I am still baffled by this idea she is the savior.
If you gonna talk about the absolute Strongest earth has to offer, you need to mention Squirrel Girl.
Lance845 wrote: Yes, but shes always been on the lower to mid tier of cosmic class characters.
If Quasar, Adam Warlock and Silver Surfer are the top tiers shes a step bellow. I would never put her up there with the power cosmic but shes definitely holding off many warships on her own. She could probably overpower Nova fairly easily even when he had the full undivided power of the Nova Corps (because he was the last one).
Dr Strange or maybe Thor might be the only cinematic characters that could actually win a fight against her but not in a direct confrontation. Strange only through round about deceit and out smarting her. Hulk is stronger (cause he always is) but she could out maneuver and outsmart him easily enough.
Pretty much this. She is strong but she is nowhere near the best, even from Earth. Sentry and Black Bolt would mop her up and there are a lot of mutants *cough*Rogue*cough* that really take her down. Strange could magic his way around her like it was nothing. Add in her awful weakness for being mind controlled and she really shouldn't be trusted near the infinity gauntlet or Thanos. I am still baffled by this idea she is the savior.
I think its gonna be a bait and switch, they push that its gonna be captain marvel with all he media etc. and when it comes right down it that last second...... she dies.... Howard the duck comes running in and haymakers thanos saving the day.
Can't be...Howard the Duck is both white and male. Unacceptable. Stop Ducksplaining.
Lance845 wrote: Yes, but shes always been on the lower to mid tier of cosmic class characters.
If Quasar, Adam Warlock and Silver Surfer are the top tiers shes a step bellow. I would never put her up there with the power cosmic but shes definitely holding off many warships on her own. She could probably overpower Nova fairly easily even when he had the full undivided power of the Nova Corps (because he was the last one).
Dr Strange or maybe Thor might be the only cinematic characters that could actually win a fight against her but not in a direct confrontation. Strange only through round about deceit and out smarting her. Hulk is stronger (cause he always is) but she could out maneuver and outsmart him easily enough.
Pretty much this. She is strong but she is nowhere near the best, even from Earth. Sentry and Black Bolt would mop her up and there are a lot of mutants *cough*Rogue*cough* that really take her down. Strange could magic his way around her like it was nothing. Add in her awful weakness for being mind controlled and she really shouldn't be trusted near the infinity gauntlet or Thanos. I am still baffled by this idea she is the savior.
Could simply be her knowledge.
Remember, Nick Fury is canonically unaware of GOTG. He’s never met them. He has no reason to believe they exist.
Thor is focussed only on his Realms.
Captain Marvel though? Potential to be the most knowledgable spod Fury is aware of.
Lance845 wrote: Yes, but shes always been on the lower to mid tier of cosmic class characters.
If Quasar, Adam Warlock and Silver Surfer are the top tiers shes a step bellow. I would never put her up there with the power cosmic but shes definitely holding off many warships on her own. She could probably overpower Nova fairly easily even when he had the full undivided power of the Nova Corps (because he was the last one).
Dr Strange or maybe Thor might be the only cinematic characters that could actually win a fight against her but not in a direct confrontation. Strange only through round about deceit and out smarting her. Hulk is stronger (cause he always is) but she could out maneuver and outsmart him easily enough.
Its tricky until we see her in the films as power levels in the comics are always all over the place depending on who is writing whom. Its a bit like Superman.
We know that very few of the movei characters can even survive fights with Thanos even before he gets his full set of stones. After that pretty much everyone was meaningless.
Hulk is no match for Thanos with even a few Stones
Scarlet Witch did manage to hold him off despite him having all but one stone and destroy the soul stone at the same time which was impressive,
Thor blasted through all the defences thrown up by all the stones with Stormbreaker
Stark managed a small cut on his face......
Still not sure about alot of Superhero stuff going on in the 80's without impacting the history of the world - was anyone else active then?
I dont know why anyone thinks shes going to be the one that turns the tide and saves the day. Marvel has never said that. They said shes the most powerful hero we have seen so far. She clearly has A role to play. But that doesn't mean shes the key or central role. If i had to guess who was going to be the central piece to winning. The final blow deliverer. Its going to be Nebula.
Captain America is going to be the key to getting it all done through planning and determination.
Cap Marvel will likely play a Thor like role. A heavy weapon that pulverizes the opposition.
Lance845 wrote: I dont know why anyone thinks shes going to be the one that turns the tide and saves the day. Marvel has never said that. They said shes the most powerful hero we have seen so far. She clearly has A role to play. But that doesn't mean shes the key or central role. If i had to guess who was going to be the central piece to winning. The final blow deliverer. Its going to be Nebula.
Captain America is going to be the key to getting it all done through planning and determination.
Cap Marvel will likely play a Thor like role. A heavy weapon that pulverizes the opposition.
It was more the audience that took that when it was first announced. The whole "Is she going to replace Cap" argument that was floating around. I disagree with it. I honestly don't even think she is going to be what saves it. Sure, she is going to be a huge help at some point but there is that chance she will be an even bigger hindrance. I made a post on FB about this awhile back actually. Here it is:
"It's March 8th. You are sitting in the movie theater waiting for Captain Marvel, you want to know where Endgame is going. You watch the movie, wait through the credits because you know it's there, then you hear a pager go off. It's the screen! She is there, holding the pager! Then she isn't, Thanos got her too. You got hoodwinked."
Ant-Man is going to be the one saving the day. Mark my words!
Spoiler:
I believe it is in Ant-Man and the Wasp where they mention that in the quantum realm, even time works differently. That is my guess for saving the day.
The whole "Is she going to replace Cap" argument that was floating around
Why would that even been an argument?
She's a super hero with strength, flight, invulnerability and energy blasts.
He's a gymnast and a stage act. Or that kid in captain planet with the heart gem. A monkey in a funny hat could replace Cap.
Not in a million years, captain american is the conscience of the avengers, he keeps them honest, if we go by the current comic version of captain marvel.... well, she is replacing no one, taking a space in a line up that could be better served with many many other characters.
Also lets not forget that Monica rambeua marvel led the avengers for a bit too, actually thinking about it why did they choose the 7th/8th version of captain marvel rather than the 1st or 2nd???
The whole "Is she going to replace Cap" argument that was floating around
Why would that even been an argument?
She's a super hero with strength, flight, invulnerability and energy blasts.
He's a gymnast and a stage act. Or that kid in captain planet with the heart gem. A monkey in a funny hat could replace Cap.
Not in a million years, captain american is the conscience of the avengers, he keeps them honest, if we go by the current comic version of captain marvel.... well, she is replacing no one, taking a space in a line up that could be better served with many many other characters.
Also lets not forget that Monica rambeua marvel led the avengers for a bit too, actually thinking about it why did they choose the 7th/8th version of captain marvel rather than the 1st or 2nd???
Because Carol Danvers debuted as Ms. Marvel in 1968 and is much better known than any other Captain Marvel incarnation outside of Mar-Vell?
The whole "Is she going to replace Cap" argument that was floating around
Why would that even been an argument?
She's a super hero with strength, flight, invulnerability and energy blasts.
He's a gymnast and a stage act. Or that kid in captain planet with the heart gem. A monkey in a funny hat could replace Cap.
Not in a million years, captain american is the conscience of the avengers, he keeps them honest, if we go by the current comic version of captain marvel.... well, she is replacing no one, taking a space in a line up that could be better served with many many other characters.
Also lets not forget that Monica rambeua marvel led the avengers for a bit too, actually thinking about it why did they choose the 7th/8th version of captain marvel rather than the 1st or 2nd???
Because Carol Danvers debuted as Ms. Marvel in 1968 and is much better known than any other Captain Marvel incarnation outside of Mar-Vell?
That doesnt explain why mar'vell was not used though?
The whole "Is she going to replace Cap" argument that was floating around
Why would that even been an argument?
She's a super hero with strength, flight, invulnerability and energy blasts.
He's a gymnast and a stage act. Or that kid in captain planet with the heart gem. A monkey in a funny hat could replace Cap.
Not in a million years, captain american is the conscience of the avengers, he keeps them honest, if we go by the current comic version of captain marvel.... well, she is replacing no one, taking a space in a line up that could be better served with many many other characters.
Also lets not forget that Monica rambeua marvel led the avengers for a bit too, actually thinking about it why did they choose the 7th/8th version of captain marvel rather than the 1st or 2nd???
Because Carol Danvers debuted as Ms. Marvel in 1968 and is much better known than any other Captain Marvel incarnation outside of Mar-Vell?
That doesnt explain why mar'vell was not used though?
Because Carol is more interesting.
Carol is a person who we can both relate to because shes human (and thus a firm link to earth), yet has her foot firmly planted in the cosmic marvel universe, has the soldier background, and at this point a longer history in the Marvel universe and relationships formed and enemies made.
Mahr-vell is a alien defector who's stories didn't last that long and whos source material predates the 70s which more or less guarantees that they are fething terrible. Besides him not actually being needed to tell Carol or anyone elses story is a big reason to skip him. And the fact that in the comics he is ANOTHER white blonde dude doesn't help either.
All of his bad guys have been Carols bad guys and then some. He's very replaceable. Obviously.
well thats your personal preference and fair enough, I cant see it though, Danvers is a very very boring character and that shows with the multitude of failed attempts to push this character over the years, I suppose its a case of one failed character over another failed character.
Personally I would have prefered a Black Widow movie, way back when they were saying they were thinking of doing it I didnt think it would work as Lucy had come out a few years earlier and Ghost in the Shell was just out, so another Johanson spy movie would have been lost in the noise, now would have been the perfect time for it, and she has earned it.
The whole "Is she going to replace Cap" argument that was floating around
Why would that even been an argument?
She's a super hero with strength, flight, invulnerability and energy blasts.
He's a gymnast and a stage act. Or that kid in captain planet with the heart gem. A monkey in a funny hat could replace Cap.
Not in a million years, captain american is the conscience of the avengers, he keeps them honest,
Except for that part where he lies to his friends and fights (and probably cripples) innocent law enforcement agents doing their jobs to save an assassin because the assassin's meat happened to have been someone he cared about.
That isn't an honest man with conscience. That's a selfish man with a questionable set of ethics. [And while that could be argued to be justified, it isn't an example of conscience or honesty]
But Captain Marvel doesn't replace that. Instead, she's potentially useful for fighting the upper level threats in the Marvel universe, while Captain America is useful for... crowd control and punching foot soldiers and normals. Which is what he's done consistently in the films.
I would call that the height of honesty and integrity and ultimetely he was proven right, bucky was innocent, he was not in control of his actions and the only person to believe in his was the only person who knew him well enough to know, had his colleagues and friends had trusted him enough it could have all been resolved in a much less painful manner.
As for use, captain america is a symbol that captain marvel can never be and will never be, no matter how hard they try and "deconstruct" captain america or push captain marvel, one has stood the test of time, the other has consistently failed.
in universe, well that doesnt even come close, Cap wins every time, its not just about "power levels" otherwise we just use the top level heroes every time and ignore the rest, Captain marvel is a uniter and has the clout to pull in even his enemies when the going gets tough.
Voss wrote: Except for that part where he lies to his friends and fights (and probably cripples) innocent law enforcement agents doing their jobs to save an assassin because the assassin's meat happened to have been someone he cared about.
That isn't an honest man with conscience. That's a selfish man with a questionable set of ethics.
This is the warped perspective that makes someone think the Empire are the good guys in Star Wars movies too.
Captain America has always been the moral compass of the Marvel Universe. If he thinks something isn't right it probably isn't. And he is uncompromising in his willingness to fight the things that are wrong.
The exception to that is the Mutant stuff. But thats less a fault of the Captain America character and more an issue of the X-men comics. None of the Xmen stuff makes any god damn sense in the larger picture of the marvel universe. It's always taken place in it's own little bubble that for whatever reason is always cut off from everybody else until the story needs someone else to be there.
They summon literal hell in the middle of NYC and spiderman, ironman, luke cage, iron fist, daredevil, dr. strange etc etc.... are nowhere to be found. The X-Men killed the ultimate universe (literally and figuratively both because their stories were shot gunned out so fast and were all so ridiculous that the rest of the Ultimate universe couldn't keep up AND because Magneto did Ultimatum) and if the MCU isn't REALLY careful about how slowly they introduce them into the MCU and what scale they tell their stories at they will ruin the MCU also.
Formosa wrote: well thats your personal preference and fair enough, I cant see it though, Danvers is a very very boring character and that shows with the multitude of failed attempts to push this character over the years, I suppose its a case of one failed character over another failed character.
Personally I would have prefered a Black Widow movie, way back when they were saying they were thinking of doing it I didnt think it would work as Lucy had come out a few years earlier and Ghost in the Shell was just out, so another Johanson spy movie would have been lost in the noise, now would have been the perfect time for it, and she has earned it.
The same reason why the movie SHAZAM! is not called Captain Marvel.
The whole "Is she going to replace Cap" argument that was floating around
Why would that even been an argument?
She's a super hero with strength, flight, invulnerability and energy blasts.
He's a gymnast and a stage act. Or that kid in captain planet with the heart gem. A monkey in a funny hat could replace Cap.
Not in a million years, captain american is the conscience of the avengers, he keeps them honest,
Except for that part where he lies to his friends and fights (and probably cripples) innocent law enforcement agents doing their jobs to save an assassin because the assassin's meat happened to have been someone he cared about.
That isn't an honest man with conscience. That's a selfish man with a questionable set of ethics. [And while that could be argued to be justified, it isn't an example of conscience or honesty]
But Captain Marvel doesn't replace that. Instead, she's potentially useful for fighting the upper level threats in the Marvel universe, while Captain America is useful for... crowd control and punching foot soldiers and normals. Which is what he's done consistently in the films.
Couple things:
Cap was ultimately right about Bucky and because he was right, they had the Winter Soldier.
Cap punches up in the Marvel Universe, especially the MCU. He fights way above his power level.
I would want nobody else calling the shots in the middle of a team fight. Human or otherwise. He is a great strategist.
Carrol Danvers has a terrible time with getting mind controlled/tricked by people. Which means she is a potential enemy as well as ally.
They summon literal hell in the middle of NYC and spiderman, ironman, luke cage, iron fist, daredevil, dr. strange etc etc.... are nowhere to be found. The X-Men killed the ultimate universe (literally and figuratively both because their stories were shot gunned out so fast and were all so ridiculous that the rest of the Ultimate universe couldn't keep up AND because Magneto did Ultimatum) and if the MCU isn't REALLY careful about how slowly they introduce them into the MCU and what scale they tell their stories at they will ruin the MCU also.
I am very worried about the X-Men joining the MCU. They are going to have to dial down a lot of their powers otherwise the introduction of Omega level mutants is going to break everything. They would have to really up the scale of power in the MCU because a lot of the mutants would make Ms. Marvel look like a child. I am not sure who they could bring in to fix that either. Black Bolt, Adam Warlock, Sentry, and The Beyonder would be a good start but those will be hard sells to the audience.
Well, I don’t know a lot about Captain Marvel. And nor will the majority of movie goers.
So to make the most of cross media sales, you go with the current iteration, so if I pick up a Captain Marvel Comic Book, I won’t spend my time reading where the hell Carol is.
Cap was ultimately right about Bucky and because he was right, they had the Winter Soldier.
Cap punches up in the Marvel Universe, especially the MCU. He fights way above his power level.
I would want nobody else calling the shots in the middle of a team fight
How so? (seriously I have no idea what made him 'right,' or what indicates he was) Also, in what way did that help? A random guy with a machinegun did not help in a African Tau vs Tyranids battle. And that itself was a complete side note to what was actually at stake.
When has this ever happened? Beyond foot soldiers, Bucky and Stark, who has Cap -ever- punched in the face? His Ultron fight was all about how outclassed he was (and the spies as well)
Eh. MCU fights are about cinematography, not tactics. Between tech, magic and experience plus superpowers, many of the others can just find weaknesses or not care. Stark was much more effective at calling shots in a lot of avengers's battles.
Cap was ultimately right about Bucky and because he was right, they had the Winter Soldier.
Cap punches up in the Marvel Universe, especially the MCU. He fights way above his power level.
I would want nobody else calling the shots in the middle of a team fight
How so? (seriously I have no idea what made him 'right,' or what indicates he was) Also, in what way did that help? A random guy with a machinegun did not help in a African Tau vs Tyranids battle. And that itself was a complete side note to what was actually at stake.
When has this ever happened? Beyond foot soldiers, Bucky and Stark, who has Cap -ever- punched in the face? His Ultron fight was all about how outclassed he was (and the spies as well)
Eh. MCU fights are about cinematography, not tactics. Between tech, magic and experience plus superpowers, many of the others can just find weaknesses or not care. Stark was much more effective at calling shots in a lot of avengers's battles.
Bucky was not acting as Cap remembers him to be, Bucky was being mind controlled, and as such not responsible for his actions, Cap knew this and tried to explain it to his friends and allies, they disregarded his warning and he decided to try and help Bucky, ultimately being proven correct about Bucky and through doing so uncovered an insider threat within shield, so he was right, through loyalty, integrity and princibles, he was ultimately proven right.
Cap saved america from the red skull and hydra several times, he was also instrumental in stopping the helicarriar fleet, he fights against people he stands no chance against and as such is an inspiration to his friends and allies.
The Avengers films show badly the other abilities of captain america, he is an amazing tactician and strategic expert, he can go toe to toe with iron man while barely armoured and win, very few can beat him in hand to hand combat with exception to the massively super powered, but if we go off your logic none of that matters because scarlet witch is there, so she can just reshape reality however she likes so everyone else is just redundant
Cap was ultimately right about Bucky and because he was right, they had the Winter Soldier. Cap punches up in the Marvel Universe, especially the MCU. He fights way above his power level. I would want nobody else calling the shots in the middle of a team fight
How so? (seriously I have no idea what made him 'right,' or what indicates he was) Also, in what way did that help?
The plot of civil war is that zemo finds the journal to control bucky but he can't actually find him.
So he puts on a rubber mask and a wig and blows up the UN to make everyone THINK bucky did it and start a word wide man hunt.
The police that show up to get bucky that cap and bucky fight their way through have orders to kill on sight. Black widow (Or sharon carter?) tells cap that before he goes in to get bucky.
Cap is right on several levels. 1) Bucky didn't even do it. 2) if he did do it he did it under mind control and isn't ultimately responsible and shouldn't pay with his life for it. 3) you don't execute people without a fair trial but thats exactly what those soldiers were going in there to do.
Because Cap refused to let Bucky get shot on sight in that film it lead to him being actual arrested and put in the containment. Which ended up playing it to zemos hands which the authorities were not even looking for. As far as everyone else knew they had their man. Which, if the avengers all signed the accords would have been their job. Not to investigate or find the real culprit but to follow orders like those soldiers who were told to kill on sight.
When bucky got mind controlled again by zemo they found the real person responsible for the UN explosion.
The only reason Bucky fell into Zemos hands is because everyone knee jerk reactioned and went gunning for him. If they let cap stop to talk to him first they would have taken another look at that security footage or something else and started looking for the right person. As it is, Zemos plan was a good one and it got everyone fighting themselves. Zemo ultimately won in Civil War. But not because cap was ever wrong. But because cap had to fight uphill against his allies because he was right.
They need Thor and Captain Marvel (and Hulk?) to fight their way through Thanos' armies and legions and navies and so on to reach him. This will provide much of the visual spectacle of the film
From there-on though, I think it will all come down to something quieter, more personal for a finale. Steve and Tony talking to Thanos, genuinely reuniting and working together. - Giving their character arc closure.
The argument, I think will be. "We do not trade lives" - the arc words of Infinity War. - Perhaps Tony talking about Peter, Cap talking about Bucky?
And the life that Thanos traded? Gamora's. He'll be convinced that it wasn't worth it.
This is all my theory of course.
I also think that there's a chance that the ending might also come down to in order to undo the snap by using, the soulstone needs another soul.
I can imagine something like Cap saying. "This isn't a trade, this is a choice. I was supposed to die 75 years ago. This is it. This is my choice. It's been an honour." *SNAP*
I've seen a persistent rumour of Steve dancing with Peggy. - One could imagine that sort of scene being lit up under the soulstones light.
Although it could just as reasonably be Tony sacrificing himself. - Which would fall under theRetirony and Widowed At the Wedding for Pepper.
And would call back to the discussions about him not being the one to do the sacrifical play. - But maybe that's been resolved already with the first Avengers film?
Regarding the whole Captain America vs Captain Marvel thing: it really doesn't matter what Steve is or is not, what he brings to the table or what his role on the team is. Chris Evans has stated his intent to leave the franchise. They aren't going to just recast the character. So either way Cap is going to be replaced with SOMEBODY. Iron Man as well. Its an inevitability.
I'm curious to see how Marvel handles it, but I think "Steve Rogers and Tony Stark hang around the MCU for another 5-10 years" is completely off the table.
They need Thor and Captain Marvel (and Hulk?) to fight their way through Thanos' armies and legions and navies and so on to reach him. This will provide much of the visual spectacle of the film
From there-on though, I think it will all come down to something quieter, more personal for a finale. Steve and Tony talking to Thanos, genuinely reuniting and working together. - Giving their character arc closure.
The argument, I think will be. "We do not trade lives" - the arc words of Infinity War. - Perhaps Tony talking about Peter, Cap talking about Bucky?
And the life that Thanos traded? Gamora's. He'll be convinced that it wasn't worth it.
This is all my theory of course.
I also think that there's a chance that the ending might also come down to in order to undo the snap by using, the soulstone needs another soul.
I can imagine something like Cap saying. "This isn't a trade, this is a choice. I was supposed to die 75 years ago. This is it. This is my choice. It's been an honour." *SNAP*
I've seen a persistent rumour of Steve dancing with Peggy. - One could imagine that sort of scene being lit up under the soulstones light.
Although it could just as reasonably be Tony sacrificing himself. - Which would fall under theRetirony and Widowed At the Wedding for Pepper.
And would call back to the discussions about him not being the one to do the sacrifical play. - But maybe that's been resolved already with the first Avengers film?
Has Thanos even got armies and hordes of minions any more - The end of the film seemed to suggest he just when to live on his own somewhere - all of the named characters that served him are dead (or as dead as anything in comic based universe).
Thats not to say that those who have lost loved ones may be hunting for him - to set it right, get vengeance, woship him etc etc - earth is only one small planet.
I like much of the rest of your post - except I want Pepper and Tony to have a happing ending I am sure RDJ will pop in for cameos for a suitcase of money or just do his voice.
Isn;t the Winter Soldier just going to become the new Cap A
I think the next phase is going to go much more cosmic focus.
It wont be "who takes caps place on the avengers" because it wont be about the avengers.
I could see fantastic 4 get introduced. And through that the negative zone and annhilus. Throw in nova. Silver surfer. Cap marvel. The kree skrull war. Adam warlock and the guardians of the galaxy.
Then do annhilation wave.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, again, my money is on Nebula undoing the snap. She will get the gauntlet. She will undo it. And in the process she will take gamoras place in the soul gem.
The argument, I think will be. "We do not trade lives" - the arc words of Infinity War. - Perhaps Tony talking about Peter, Cap talking about Bucky?
And the life that Thanos traded? Gamora's. He'll be convinced that it wasn't worth it.
This is all my theory of course.
I imagine there is something to that as Red Skull tells Thanos that everyone thinks that they are ready to make the sacrifice but all of them are wrong which seems to imply that Thanos is going to regret it as well.
BlaxicanX wrote:Regarding the whole Captain America vs Captain Marvel thing: it really doesn't matter what Steve is or is not, what he brings to the table or what his role on the team is. Chris Evans has stated his intent to leave the franchise. They aren't going to just recast the character. So either way Cap is going to be replaced with SOMEBODY. Iron Man as well. Its an inevitability.
I'm curious to see how Marvel handles it, but I think "Steve Rogers and Tony Stark hang around the MCU for another 5-10 years" is completely off the table.
Bucky or Sam are probably going to be taking Cap's place...
Lance845 wrote:
Also, again, my money is on Nebula undoing the snap. She will get the gauntlet. She will undo it. And in the process she will take gamoras place in the soul gem.
Well, there's certainly a precedence for that happening - at least, in the Comics!
Lance845 wrote: I think the next phase is going to go much more cosmic focus.
It wont be "who takes caps place on the avengers" because it wont be about the avengers.
I could see fantastic 4 get introduced. And through that the negative zone and annhilus. Throw in nova. Silver surfer. Cap marvel. The kree skrull war. Adam warlock and the guardians of the galaxy.
Then do annhilation wave.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, again, my money is on Nebula undoing the snap. She will get the gauntlet. She will undo it. And in the process she will take gamoras place in the soul gem.
I am in on Annihilation Wave. That would be real interesting. Even the Celestials get involved there if I remember, seeing some of the Cosmic Constants would be interesting. Isn't Galactus a key player in that though? Like, isn't that the one where he goes 1 on 1 with Eternity or something and he is eventually vindicated as a good guy? (Been a while since I read up on it and might be getting arcs mixed)
If they don't kill Cap and Tony off in Endgame, I expect to see Tony show up as an AI voice and Cap(If they convince Chris to do some cameos) take over the job of Nick Fury. Steve has gone underground in the comics before, I could see them putting Cap on hiatus in the hopes that in 5-10 years Chris will want back in the game.
The argument, I think will be. "We do not trade lives" - the arc words of Infinity War. - Perhaps Tony talking about Peter, Cap talking about Bucky?
And the life that Thanos traded? Gamora's. He'll be convinced that it wasn't worth it.
This is all my theory of course.
I imagine there is something to that as Red Skull tells Thanos that everyone thinks that they are ready to make the sacrifice but all of them are wrong which seems to imply that Thanos is going to regret it as well.
I think what he meant there was that Thanos is not ready because Thanos does not understand the price. When Thanos realized it, he already didn't want to do it. You could see it in his eyes. He probably has some serious regret and hate for himself. I assume that Thanos, cosmically powered as he is, can fall to depression.
cuda1179 wrote: Looks like Captain Marvel is down to a 28% Rotten Tomatoes score.
Might be significant, but I'm not attaching too much importance to that just yet, given how many seasoned culture warriors will have had the knives out for this movie right from the start.
cuda1179 wrote: Looks like Captain Marvel is down to a 28% Rotten Tomatoes score.
Might be significant, but I'm not attaching too much importance to that just yet, given how many seasoned culture warriors will have had the knives out for this movie right from the start.
I dont know man, thats 34000 "seasoned culture warriors", if you go and read the comments you will find some of those but the overwhelming majority are just normal people, that being said though, who cares, its rotten tomatoes, they are hardly to be trusted anyway
Lance845 wrote: 34000 people havent seen the movie yet. Its not out. Only some press screening have happened. I very much doubt 34000 seats of press screanings exist.
The ranking is “want to see it” which.... okay? Honestly that’s a thing I learned exists today.
I will believe this movie is in trouble when I see a $70 M opening weekend. I really cannot believe anyone who says this movie will bomb. Whether it will create trohble for the larger MCU is, IMO, a separate question.
I'm with you on that Manchu, I don't see this film failing either, it's one thing to dislike brie Larson and the character and another to expect a marvel film to fail, whilst I'm also not a fan of the marketing of this film, that doesn't mean when I eventually see it I will dislike it, it could be a good film, so far I don't think marvel has put out a real stinker, ant Man was meh but still better than most other films in the genre.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I must say though IF it fails, it will be down to the marketing, the "last Jedi" effect could kick in and make people avoid it, the devil will be skating to work before that effects end game though.
Lance845 wrote: 34000 people havent seen the movie yet. Its not out. Only some press screening have happened. I very much doubt 34000 seats of press screanings exist.
Yeah no shizz. The only thing that has really proved is that the barrier to entry for the perpetually butthurt to leave a fake "review" is pretty low. No way 99% of these people have seen anything other than a trailer.
What is probably going on here is the studio is posting all of these fake reviews so when the movie bombs, they can claim it's because of an orchestrated campaign of internet trolling.
Spoiler:
Also, the tomatometer is at zero since there aren't any critic reviews yet. I don't know if the pre-reviews get factored in after release or not. I guess there is no way of determining that until the movie actually comes out and seeing if it has approx 40k fan reviews in the first hour.
Yeah, I get that. I mean, after RT starts actually posting reviews, I don't know if the "Want to see" numbers get rolled over into user reviews. Probably do since the latest Train Your Dragon movie has about 50k reviews and the oldest are for a month before the movie released.
It's almost as if a score rating if people want to see the film is a good indicator of people who want to see the film.
Whodathunkit?
Anyone reporting this as "review bombing" doesn't understand how Rotten Tomatoes (or even reviews in general) function. Episode 9, a movie that hasn't even got a frickin' title yet, is also getting "review bombed" by "trolls" apparently. No, it's just a whole lot of people saying that they don't want to go and see it. That's how that particular rating system is working. This is not a bug folks, it's a feature operating as intended.
If you visit review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes this evening, you’ll notice some big changes. Following the ongoing “review bombing” trend that started on the site with a group of users attempt to “ruin” such box office record breaking films as Star Wars: The Last Jedi and Black Panther, RT has decided to remove certain functions in an effort to preserve the purpose of the site.
In an editorial posted to RT’s homepage, it was revealed that the “interested in” functionality has been removed for films, as well as a the comments section, prior to a film’s release.
Starting this week, Rotten Tomatoes will launch the first of several phases of updates that will refresh and modernize our Audience Rating System. We’re doing it to more accurately and authentically represent the voice of fans, while protecting our data and public forums from bad actors.
We are disabling the comment function prior to a movie’s release date. Unfortunately, we have seen an uptick in non-constructive input, sometimes bordering on trolling, which we believe is a disservice to our general readership. We have decided that turning off this feature for now is the best course of action. Don’t worry though, fans will still get to have their say: Once a movie is released, audiences can leave a user rating and comments as they always have.
There was also the reveal that a cleaner look to the scoring will be implemented in the coming days:
Last but not least, you will notice we are making some layout changes to the site. Through our research department we have learned that our users would prefer a cleaner, less cluttered, presentation of the Tomatometer and Audience Score. Don’t worry, the information and data are still there (promise!).
Lance845 wrote: 34000 people havent seen the movie yet. Its not out. Only some press screening have happened. I very much doubt 34000 seats of press screanings exist.
The ranking is “want to see it” which.... okay? Honestly that’s a thing I learned exists today.
It was introduced because people who hadn't seen movies yet were using RT ratings to try and sabotage them to make a point, they thought that might draw them off. They're now getting rid of the "want to see" score too though, because it's confusing people - as above - and now the comments and audience rating won't go live until a movie is released.
Captain Marvel has been the target of a concerted trolling effort to such an extent that it may be what prompted the changes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
H.B.M.C. wrote: It's almost as if a score rating if people want to see the film is a good indicator of people who want to see the film.
Whodathunkit?
Anyone reporting this as "review bombing" doesn't understand how Rotten Tomatoes (or even reviews in general) function. Episode 9, a movie that hasn't even got a frickin' title yet, is also getting "review bombed" by "trolls" apparently. No, it's just a whole lot of people saying that they don't want to go and see it. That's how that particular rating system is working. This is not a bug folks, it's a feature operating as intended.
If Black Panther, which went absolutely gangbusters at the box office, could get a poor want-to-see score then no, it's doing the opposite of what it's supposed to represent.
Cmon, we're none of us brand new, there's no mystery. Every one of us would be able to predict which movie would have its score tank from space regardless of how well it was likely to actually perform.
cuda1179 wrote: Well, the reviews did bottom out at 26% before this event. I'm wondering how politically motivated this was on the part of RT?
I'd bet none. Metacritic and RT both suffer from routine "bombing" whether it be positive or negative. The habit actively hurts the basis on which they market themselves (that they can presumably present fair ratings for entertainment). They were bound to respond sooner or later. I'm actually surprised it took this long. I actually find iTune's reviews more useful these days if only because any iTune's review that goes up actually got reviewed first. People with nonsensical/obviously trolling submissions don't make it onto the board (though that isn't to say the ones that do are all useful).
Captain Marvel. Third highest draw for ticket pre-sales....
DenofGeek wrote:Captain Marvel has already overtaken Aquaman, Deadpool and Wonder Woman in terms of ticket presales in the US, with the film currently being the third-biggest MCU preseller to date, just behind Avengers: Infinity War and Black Panther. Lots and lots of people Want To See it.
So 34000 people expressing their displeasure at the marketing of the film are "troll" thats the stupidest thing I have heard onthe internet for a long time, lets not assign any blame to the words of brie larson, lets not assign any blame to the movie needlessly getting involved in politics when the movie is clearly not about politics, nope, lets blame the general public and fans.
Does anyone remember when Wonder Woman had this problem? or Tomb Raider? Prometheus? Alita? Hunger Games?
Know what all those films have in common? Female leads and they didnt piss off the fans, they didnt attack the fans and they didnt harp on about how progressive they were, well apart from hunger games towards the end.
So now because of the bad behaviour of several movies activist marketing antagonising people, we have lost yet another avenue to express our displeasure of using such tactics.... I wonder if Rotten Tomatoes realises how much this will damage their integrity ... well what little they had left anyway.
You're literally saying 'how dare Brie Larson have and express an opinion'.
Disagree with her? That's fine and dandy.
Getting your knickers in a twist based on her opinion? Not so much.
No she can express whatever she likes, thats totally fine, what is not fine is that others are not allowed to express their opinion against it, one is being pushed, the other is being shut down.
Then as a separate but connected issue, this series has stayed out of all this nonsense until Black Panther, they saw it worked for Black Panther and now they are doing the same for Captain Marvel, so the Inevitable backlash has happened and they are milking it, this is why I said right before the marketing even kicked off properly, they need to keep a tight hold of this, dont antagonise people, had they done so we would likely not be having this conversation, they are the root course of it, not the general public, not the fans, the Marvel Marketing team and Brie Larson, I keep saying it but they should never have got involved with all the nonsense, dont pick sides, stay out of it.
I honestly fail to see how anyone can find an issue with me saying this, can we all not agree it would have been better for them to stay out of stupidity of the "culture war"
Or Brie 'not actually a representative of Marvel, just an actress in one of their films' Larson?
You're really blowing it out of all proportion.
You read all of that and this is all you focussed on...... yes, this series, the marvel cinematic universe, they have stayed out of the nonsense so far, until Black Panther.
And yes she is representing them, when she pushes her ideology on their platform, she is representing them, now if Marvel came out and said "Brie larsons views are not representative of Marvels views blah blah blah" that would be a totally different thing.
As for blowing it out of proportion, this is how it always starts, this is how it started in games, anime, TT gaming, Magic etc. etc. and each time its split the community right down the middle for the worse, regardless of which side you fall down on, it doesnt matter, what matters is these former communities have been made worse for the introduction of the "culture war"
Or Brie 'not actually a representative of Marvel, just an actress in one of their films' Larson?
You're really blowing it out of all proportion.
You read all of that and this is all you focussed on...... yes, this series, the marvel cinematic universe, they have stayed out of the nonsense so far, until Black Panther.
And yes she is representing them, when she pushes her ideology on their platform, she is representing them, now if Marvel came out and said "Brie larsons views are not representative of Marvels views blah blah blah" that would be a totally different thing.
As for blowing it out of proportion, this is how it always starts, this is how it started in games, anime, TT gaming, Magic etc. etc. and each time its split the community right down the middle for the worse, regardless of which side you fall down on, it doesnt matter, what matters is these former communities have been made worse for the introduction of the "culture war"
I am sure that at least Doc we can agree on.
You should calm your...jets. your posts are really over the top about a movie that is not out and jeez it's just a comic book movie.
Or Brie 'not actually a representative of Marvel, just an actress in one of their films' Larson?
You're really blowing it out of all proportion.
You read all of that and this is all you focussed on...... yes, this series, the marvel cinematic universe, they have stayed out of the nonsense so far, until Black Panther.
And yes she is representing them, when she pushes her ideology on their platform, she is representing them, now if Marvel came out and said "Brie larsons views are not representative of Marvels views blah blah blah" that would be a totally different thing.
As for blowing it out of proportion, this is how it always starts, this is how it started in games, anime, TT gaming, Magic etc. etc. and each time its split the community right down the middle for the worse, regardless of which side you fall down on, it doesnt matter, what matters is these former communities have been made worse for the introduction of the "culture war"
I am sure that at least Doc we can agree on.
You should calm your...jets. your posts are really over the top about a movie that is not out and jeez it's just a comic book movie.
How so Frazzled, I think I have been quite fair, calm and collected so far, I am just raising issues as I have seen them, if you dont agree thats fair enough.
Also its not just a comic movie dude, its a comic book movie that is a multi billion dollar industry and part of the cultural zeitgeist, it has impact both financially and culturally, these films have import for millions of people.
“It’s only a comicbook movie” applies both ways. Yes, some people are getting really steamed about this one. But a lot of people are awfully defensive about it, too.
You're literally saying 'how dare Brie Larson have and express an opinion'.
Disagree with her? That's fine and dandy.
Getting your knickers in a twist based on her opinion? Not so much.
No she can express whatever she likes, thats totally fine, what is not fine is that others are not allowed to express their opinion against it, one is being pushed, the other is being shut down.
Then as a separate but connected issue, this series has stayed out of all this nonsense until Black Panther, they saw it worked for Black Panther and now they are doing the same for Captain Marvel, so the Inevitable backlash has happened and they are milking it, this is why I said right before the marketing even kicked off properly, they need to keep a tight hold of this, dont antagonise people, had they done so we would likely not be having this conversation, they are the root course of it, not the general public, not the fans, the Marvel Marketing team and Brie Larson, I keep saying it but they should never have got involved with all the nonsense, dont pick sides, stay out of it.
I honestly fail to see how anyone can find an issue with me saying this, can we all not agree it would have been better for them to stay out of stupidity of the "culture war"
You are allowed to express your opinion. And then others are allowed to express theirs back at you in turn.
It's not a "Culture War" for black actors to be proud to be in a majority black super hero movie where the color of their skin isn't a gimmick (something that did not happen before Black Panther). And it's not a "Culture War" for Brie Larson to address sexists by saying if you have a problem with a female lead film then I don't care what you have to say this movie isn't for you.
Here is me expressing my opinion to you. You assign gak to what is happening that is a skewed version of reality and you are not the only one who does it. You look for blows in a "culture war" that isn't happening. Marvel is just making good movies and diversifying their line up as they go. Good.
Or Brie 'not actually a representative of Marvel, just an actress in one of their films' Larson?
You're really blowing it out of all proportion.
You read all of that and this is all you focussed on...... yes, this series, the marvel cinematic universe, they have stayed out of the nonsense so far, until Black Panther.
And yes she is representing them, when she pushes her ideology on their platform, she is representing them, now if Marvel came out and said "Brie larsons views are not representative of Marvels views blah blah blah" that would be a totally different thing.
As for blowing it out of proportion, this is how it always starts, this is how it started in games, anime, TT gaming, Magic etc. etc. and each time its split the community right down the middle for the worse, regardless of which side you fall down on, it doesnt matter, what matters is these former communities have been made worse for the introduction of the "culture war"
I am sure that at least Doc we can agree on.
You should calm your...jets. your posts are really over the top about a movie that is not out and jeez it's just a comic book movie.
How so Frazzled, I think I have been quite fair, calm and collected so far, I am just raising issues as I have seen them, if you dont agree thats fair enough.
Also its not just a comic movie dude, its a comic book movie that is a multi billion dollar industry and part of the cultural zeitgeist, it has impact both financially and culturally, these films have import for millions of people.
I am trying to say this nicely so please take it like that. It seems you are emotional ly involved due to posts statements from Brie that don't appear bad actually. Movie is not out. Marketing on most places is generic marvel. I don't get the objections.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: “It’s only a comicbook movie” applies both ways. Yes, some people are getting really steamed about this one. But a lot of people are awfully defensive about it, too.
True. I am trying to say this is not a cry Freedom type movie, but a tentpole, and I don't see the marketing that us driving the rage.
Were it just for those reasons I would agree with you Lance, however it's been shown many many times that you are either with us, or you lose your job or worse.
I call it "the culture war" as most everyone here knows what that is, and to some extent they also understand it, if you can give me another apt term I will happily use it instead.
As for explaining why is absolutely is part of the "culture war" I would have to full on talk about politics, and that is not allowed here so we can talk about that via PM if you wish.
And no I am not assigning Gak that is a skewed version of reality, denying the existence of these issues would be a skewed version of reality. And yes marvel is continuing to make good movies with the same diverse cast they have always had, pretending that captain marvel is the first female super hero lead they have had is a lie, electra, pretending that black panther is the first black superhero lead is a lie, Blade, I get why they are doing it and objectively from a marketing standpoint it's a great move, morally it does not sit well with me using peoples race or gender to push a product just to make money.
You can, as you say, disagree I have no problem with that at all, disagree away, it forces me to challenge my own thoughts and possibly change them based on new information, less of that "skewed reality" nonsense though eh, I could just as easily have thrown that back at you and then we would get nowhere.
Formosa wrote: Were it just for those reasons I would agree with you Lance, however it's been shown many many times that you are either with us, or you lose your job or worse.
I call it "the culture war" as most everyone here knows what that is, and to some extent they also understand it, if you can give me another apt term I will happily use it instead.
As for explaining why is absolutely is part of the "culture war" I would have to full on talk about politics, and that is not allowed here so we can talk about that via PM if you wish.
And no I am not assigning Gak that is a skewed version of reality, denying the existence of these issues would be a skewed version of reality. And yes marvel is continuing to make good movies with the same diverse cast they have always had, pretending that captain marvel is the first female super hero lead they have had is a lie, electra, pretending that black panther is the first black superhero lead is a lie, Blade, I get why they are doing it and objectively from a marketing standpoint it's a great move, morally it does not sit well with me using peoples race or gender to push a product just to make money.
You can, as you say, disagree I have no problem with that at all, disagree away, it forces me to challenge my own thoughts and possibly change them based on new information, less of that "skewed reality" nonsense though eh, I could just as easily have thrown that back at you and then we would get nowhere.
PM away if you want. I am happy to talk to anyone about anything.
My baseline argument is that what I said is how Marvel throws it out there. There ARE bigots and idiots on the other side who ARE invested in a culture war. And they bring that to their table. That is not Marvel or the actors fault. They are just making a movie. Being pissed at Marvel for making a majority black film or Brie Larson for telling bigots their opinions don't matter isn't getting involved. It's just normal gak that normal people should be doing.
This is more about Marvel trying to make up for DC finally beating the MCU at something. This is about Marvel having no WW equivalent character after all these decades. This is about an actress without much in the way of grace or charm or wit trying to build a career on political commentary. And this is about Marvel Studios trying to reconfigure some plans in the wake of firing Gunn.
A lot of this is grating and even irritating. But our culture is not what’s on the line. Just our patience.
Dude, none of these movies are political landmarks. I know the kool aid is delicious but be careful about drinking so much of it.
I mean, we can't pretend it's coincidence there haven't been female or black headliners in 20 odd MCU movies until now. If you belong to either of those categories, it would naturally feel pretty big.
If you don't, and don't have so much of a stake, it's not clear why they're worth getting so worked up about.
Formosa wrote: Were it just for those reasons I would agree with you Lance, however it's been shown many many times that you are either with us, or you lose your job or worse.
I call it "the culture war" as most everyone here knows what that is, and to some extent they also understand it, if you can give me another apt term I will happily use it instead.
As for explaining why is absolutely is part of the "culture war" I would have to full on talk about politics, and that is not allowed here so we can talk about that via PM if you wish.
And no I am not assigning Gak that is a skewed version of reality, denying the existence of these issues would be a skewed version of reality. And yes marvel is continuing to make good movies with the same diverse cast they have always had, pretending that captain marvel is the first female super hero lead they have had is a lie, electra, pretending that black panther is the first black superhero lead is a lie, Blade, I get why they are doing it and objectively from a marketing standpoint it's a great move, morally it does not sit well with me using peoples race or gender to push a product just to make money.
You can, as you say, disagree I have no problem with that at all, disagree away, it forces me to challenge my own thoughts and possibly change them based on new information, less of that "skewed reality" nonsense though eh, I could just as easily have thrown that back at you and then we would get nowhere.
PM away if you want. I am happy to talk to anyone about anything.
My baseline argument is that what I said is how Marvel throws it out there. There ARE bigots and idiots on the other side who ARE invested in a culture war. And they bring that to their table. That is not Marvel or the actors fault. They are just making a movie. Being pissed at Marvel for making a majority black film or Brie Larson for telling bigots their opinions don't matter isn't getting involved. It's just normal gak that normal people should be doing.
Sweet we agree on something, yep there are bigots on both sides causing trouble for everyone else, one of the issues is like you say, being pissed off for making a majority black film or a female lead is pure stupidity of the highest order, thing is the people with genuine complaints get thrown into that category too or labeled trolls or sometimes much much worse.
Now marvel decided to push this film from a feminist angle, it's right there in the trailer, then we get brie larsons comments, bam, they are now involved, was it intentional, well we don't know, from larsons perspective I would say yes as she is a self confessed activist who stated directly that she is using this film for activism, as for marvel marketing, I would say yes and no, yes because the same marketing worked so well for black panther and no because I don't think they expected it to have such a backlash this time, can we assign blame to them, absolutely, they should have known what they were doing, especially Larson who is infamous for these kinds of things.
But what does this have to do with the movie itself, well, a lot and a little, it has and will affect ticket sales, members of the general public and these "trolls" who don't like the marketing, or her comments will not go and see it, but that's a hundred thousand people at most I think, the movie will be successful as I have said many many times now, I also don't think this will affect end games sales either, that movie is too much of a juggernaut to be affected currently.
But people will remember this, they will remember marvel calling them trolls, they will remember the insults for the "activist" journalists, so marvel needs to be a bit wary about this kind of marketing in the future, star wars is too big to fail, and it's now failing badly, I don't want to see marvel go the same way when it's so easily avoided.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I really don’t think this is a culture war.
This is more about Marvel trying to make up for DC finally beating the MCU at something. This is about Marvel having no WW equivalent character after all these decades. This is about an actress without much in the way of grace or charm or wit trying to build a career on political commentary. And this is about Marvel Studios trying to reconfigure some plans in the wake of firing Gunn.
A lot of this is grating and even irritating. But our culture is not what’s on the line. Just our patience.
Kanluwen wrote: Maybe if you don't want to get lumped in with the trolls, you should be more vocal in decrying them and not let them hijack your "arguments".
And really? "Activist" journalists? What next, you gonna start shouting about fake news?
The journalists I am talking about are self confessed activists I can show you this if you want, what would you call them if not "activist journalists" ?
And I decry them all the time, its pretty much all i have been doing here so far, hence the "dont get involved with the culture war" its a steaming cesspit of idiots regardless of side, but I also try to be fair and understand that some of these people are being called trolls just because they are falling on the "wrong side", for example calling 34000 people "trolls" just because they were complaining about the marketing of this film is just wrong.
"Fake News" is a real and annoying thing, thats why I have media guard now, ever read the daily mail but thats a toooootally different conversation to have
Frazzled wrote: Judging by our comrade's earlier note of massive presales, I would say the marketing has been a hit.
based on what, i mean lets be honest, how much of that is mainly down to it being a marvel movie in the marvel series? all we can say for sure is some people have been put off by it, but in the interest of fairness i am sure some have been attracted by it too.
Like I said before, this marketing has been shown to work, it worked for black panther, but just because I appreciate a well made marketing campaign (black panther) does not mean I cant take a step back and say "maybe you shouldnt use race and gender to sell a product, maybe you should let it stand on its own merits" and thankfully Black panther does stand on its own merits, that of a standard middle of the road marvel film, no better or worse than the rest of the franchise.
But that marketing campaign, god damn it was well played, they turned it from a normal film into a cultural Icon, it was a big big risk but it paid off.
But will Captain marvels? well if the film is good, maybe, if its bad, they will blame the trolls again like always and bam, split fanbase, this is why i call it the "last jedi effect" as regardless of where you fall on that film, its undeniable its split the fanbase.
this very forum alone proves what i am saying, some are ok with it, some are not, and not a single troll in sight yet.
I agree with Frazzled - I don't know where you're getting this stuff from. The trailer is no different to any other superhero trailer, so I assume it's in other marketing material?
Are you seriously going to get upset over a bit of clever marketing?
The bit where it's "FIND OUT WHAT MAKES
HER
--brief pause--
add
A >HER from before< O"
?
Seriously? That's what you've been on about?
Poor attempt at cherry picking there Kan.
I have made it quite clear what I've taken issue to over several posts, if you don't understand that, that's your issue, not mine.
The trailer is one part of the greater story as you know damn well, you are either willingly minsconstruing the argument or just want to nit pick to support "your side"
Formosa wrote: honest question but have you lot genuinly not seen all the marketing going on at the moment, the TV spots the "her(o)" the interviews?
Maybe its because i watch the news and read the news more, I dont know
I watch BBC, local news and CNN. I read Bing, Bloomberg, WSJ. I watch Pixie and Brutus on YouTube and am hooked into LGBTX issues via Gamma Rho. My Facebook is full of history memes and posts from competition sites and dog rescue sites. I have only seen the trailers so no.
Manchu wrote: I think he is referring to Ms. Larson telling the whole world she wanted to use the marketing campaign for the movie as a platform for activism.
Formosa wrote: honest question but have you lot genuinly not seen all the marketing going on at the moment, the TV spots the "her(o)" the interviews?
Maybe its because i watch the news and read the news more, I dont know
I've seen the trailers. That's it. Hence my question, because there's nothing particularly controversial in any of them.
Still, I find it hard to take offence with the agenda that's at play here. Makes a change from the reactionary messages that most blockbusters seem to push.
Formosa wrote: honest question but have you lot genuinly not seen all the marketing going on at the moment, the TV spots the "her(o)" the interviews?
Maybe its because i watch the news and read the news more, I dont know
I watch BBC, local news and CNN. I read Bing, Bloomberg, WSJ. I watch Pixie and Brutus on YouTube and am hooked into LGBTX issues via Gamma Rho. My Facebook is full of history memes and posts from competition sites and dog rescue sites. I have only seen the trailers so no.
Fair enough dude, this is just the top results for articles on captain marvel, its pretty clear who and what the marketing is aimed at, not that it is a major problem in and of itself.
there are literally hundreds of articles like these and TV spots/interviews with the cast and crew all towing the party line.
Formosa wrote: And I decry them all the time, its pretty much all i have been doing here so far, hence the "dont get involved with the culture war" its a steaming cesspit of idiots regardless of side
This is rich. Half of the culture war posts in this thread are you. Most of the ones on this page are you. You're literally saying in the first sentence quoted that you actively engage on one side and then in the next sentence claiming you're above it.
Formosa wrote: honest question but have you lot genuinly not seen all the marketing going on at the moment, the TV spots the "her(o)" the interviews?
Maybe its because i watch the news and read the news more, I dont know
I watch BBC, local news and CNN. I read Bing, Bloomberg, WSJ. I watch Pixie and Brutus on YouTube and am hooked into LGBTX issues via Gamma Rho. My Facebook is full of history memes and posts from competition sites and dog rescue sites. I have only seen the trailers so no.
Fair enough dude, this is just the top results for articles on captain marvel, its pretty clear who and what the marketing is aimed at, not that it is a major problem in and of itself.
there are literally hundreds of articles like these and TV spots/interviews with the cast and crew all towing the party line.
Is there something inherently wrong with marketing a power fantasy to girls? I mean, aren't we getting a movie this year that's near and dear to our hearts for being sold to us entirely on the fantasy of "I HAVE THE POWER"?
Frazzled wrote: Thank you for the links. There is definitely a bit of marketing here. I don't find particularly bothersome, maybe annoying if I wanted it to be.
Review bombing in specific seems to be counterproductive. It has been happening on Steam for a while now, and the usual effect is a boost in visibility and then sales for the game being bombed. It's really a Streisand effect, ultimately.
LunarSol wrote: Is there something inherently wrong with marketing a power fantasy to girls? I mean, aren't we getting a movie this year that's near and dear to our hearts for being sold to us entirely on the fantasy of "I HAVE THE POWER"?
Have you watched "The Toys That Made Us" about He-Man?
Frazzled wrote: Thank you for the links. There is definitely a bit of marketing here. I don't find particularly bothersome, maybe annoying if I wanted it to be.
Review bombing in specific seems to be counterproductive. It has been happening on Steam for a while now, and the usual effect is a boost in visibility and then sales for the game being bombed. It's really a Streisand effect, ultimately.
LunarSol wrote: Is there something inherently wrong with marketing a power fantasy to girls? I mean, aren't we getting a movie this year that's near and dear to our hearts for being sold to us entirely on the fantasy of "I HAVE THE POWER"?
Have you watched "The Toys That Made Us" about He-Man?
Formosa wrote: And I decry them all the time, its pretty much all i have been doing here so far, hence the "dont get involved with the culture war" its a steaming cesspit of idiots regardless of side
This is rich. Half of the culture war posts in this thread are you. Most of the ones on this page are you. You're literally saying in the first sentence quoted that you actively engage on one side and then in the next sentence claiming you're above it.
As said before, if you can suggest a better catch all term that everyone has a base understanding of, crack on, I will use it.
And pointing something out does not mean you are part of it, that's the basest of logic right rhere, along those lines if I point out racism and decry it, I'm a racist....
Frazzled wrote: Thank you for the links. There is definitely a bit of marketing here. I don't find particularly bothersome, maybe annoying if I wanted it to be.
Review bombing in specific seems to be counterproductive. It has been happening on Steam for a while now, and the usual effect is a boost in visibility and then sales for the game being bombed. It's really a Streisand effect, ultimately.
There have been no review bombs of captain marvel thus far, and again you are dismissing the voices of tens of thousands of people who's only way of showing their displeasure to the creators was the very system that has now been removed.
The problem is apparently with the marketing, the movie, and Brie Larson herself, but it's still not clear to me what that problem actually is. It's not self evident, and I'm entirely unconvinced it's some kind of charitable concern for Marvel's welfare.
Really? I kind of doubt it’s much more than a couple of hundred people upset over nowt?
74% of 47000 IIRC i forget the exact numbers now, thats tens of thousands, and that is just one poll, now if we take those people at their word, then thats tens of thousands of people who dont want to see the film but again thats one poll, on rotten tomatoes, compare that to the much much higher amount of people who wont even see Rotten tamatoes, couple of million people will probably see the film, its a drop in the pond, but still lost revenue.
Of course someone will likely claim it was "russian bots" or something haha
they're pushing a crappy film by "historian" Dinesh D'Souza instead.
Bless.
I actually expected this response much earlier, thats why i went and read so many of the comments on RT before they were taken down, these are not representative of the majority of comments, but hey its Cracked lol, they go looking such click bait, they are a comedy site after all, its their job.
Automatically Appended Next Post: also reading those, they are not the worst i saw on there haha
thats tens of thousands of people who dont want to see the film b
No, it's xxxxx/however many people who do not want other people to see the film because they do not agree with their interpretation or idea of a message they believe it's saying/pushing.
if we take those people at their word
and they all seem so genuine and plausible and honest.
Well, it's like my mom always said - if you can't trust tens of thousands of people leaving typo-ridden, single-sentence negative reviews of a movie they haven't seen, who can you trust?
I still don’t know what the problem is with this movie. It just comes across as, “feminism is evil cos ..” well, why exactly I don’t know. They never really explain that bit.
I just want this movie to hurry up and come out so we can talk about cool action scenes, Ben Mendelsohn killing it like he does in every role, cameo's from the late Stan Lee(Maybe?) and other heroes of the MCU, mid credits scenes and post credit scenes and what it means for the future of the MCU. Like a normal superhero flick, I guess.
nels1031 wrote: I just want this movie to hurry up and come out so we can talk about cool action scenes, Ben Mendelsohn killing it like he does in every role, cameo's from the late Stan Lee(Maybe?) and other heroes of the MCU, mid credits scenes and post credit scenes and what it means for the future of the MCU. Like a normal superhero flick, I guess.
I’m with you on that. Looking forward to the expansion of the Cosmic side of Marvel.
MonkeyBallistic wrote: I still don’t know what the problem is with this movie. It just comes across as, “feminism is evil cos ..” well, why exactly I don’t know. They never really explain that bit.
Ok it breaks down like this, and this is a gross oversimplification, currently some believe that there is a certain political class of people that are trying to push their ideology through media and other outlets, they are annoyed at being called names constantly and being painted as "trolls" "alt right" "ismphobes" etc and are pushing back against what they perceive as the encroachment into the MCU by this specific set of people and ideologies.
Now believe it or dont, it doesnt matter, what matters is they believe it and it motivates their actions, adding fuel to this fire are the statements of Brie larson and the bias of the activist journalists (#notall like it needs to be said constantly), so you have two groups at odds with each other, the click bait journalists throwing petrol on the fire to make money and suddenly you end up where we are now, RT censoring itself, these are all just symptoms of a greater issue within american culture and by extention, british culture, this is just the current thing they are fighting over.
Then there is another group of people, these are the people caught up in the middle of both of these parties, but they still get labeled in the same way, so some of thees people get annoyed and boycot the film.
Now merely pointing all this out makes you evil and "one of them", people deny its even happening for some odd reason and to the general public who dont take part in internet culture, it might as well not be happening, and they are the vast majority of the viewing audience, they are the reason why this film will likely do well.
The vast majority of people are either unaware or just care about this. Its just a very vocal minority of people.
... and honestly, I still fail to understand what Brie Larson has said that’s so wrong, despite several people trying to convince me of her monstrous evil
The vast majority of people are either unaware or just care about this. Its just a very vocal minority of people.
... and honestly, I still fail to understand what Brie Larson has said that’s so wrong, despite several people trying to convince me of her monstrous evil
Well that depends really, personally I find that using racism and sexism to fight racism and sexism is wrong, others are of the mind that its ok as long as the result is a possitive one, its an argument older than any of us and will outlast all of us.
I also find it distasteful to use people race and gender to promote a film, its weird to me, I know its happened in the past, spike lee for example was notorious for it, but it seems to have gotten worse in the last few years.
As to why it matters, if you support a particular ideology and see its opposite pushed everywhere and yours is demonised and misrepresented everywhere, well... it will annoy you, it will cause these twitter bubbles to start affecting real life (which it has many many times) in negative ways, and before we know it people are hurt or worse, because we said it didnt matter over and over again while these crazy people took more and more.
And yes its a tiny minority of people, who have a massive amount of power, disproportionately so, so here i am in the middle (literally sometimes) having one side scream at the other and both hate me, its lose lose for me, as shown on this very forum just pointing out these problems somehow makes me in with the alt right... insanity.
Why people can;t watch the trailer and decide if they want to see it or not I don't know - why do they need to be told what to like.
I have plenty of issues with so called Professional Reviewers but people reviewing a film before they have seen it is mad.
Not yet excited by the trailer but its a Marvel movie so I am hoping its going to be at worst ok....
This is pretty much spot on mate, I only found out about all this insanity last year some time possibly 2017, but since I changed jobs and have had more time to watch the news, read news etc. its become very clear there is an underlying problem that is being fought over, these idiots have ruined so much over the last few years with the fighting.
Automatically Appended Next Post: anyway im gonna take a break, i have gone waaaaaaaaay off topic, if anyone want to talk about this more please PM me, I will only talk about the comics, characters etc. from here on
As to why it matters, if you support a particular ideology and see its opposite pushed everywhere and yours is demonised and misrepresented everywhere, well... it will annoy you
A commendable sympathy for Ms Larson, but she seems to be taking it in her stride, to be fair.
I think our society need to do a better job in separating artist's personal belief/poltics from the actual products we consume.
I freaking looooved Audioslave and Pink Floyd... who are outright pinko commies ( ).
But we're more than just our politics.
For one, I'm stoked about Captain Marvel and I hope this is the harbinger of the more cosmic side of Marvel. And, it'd be truly sad that others would try to spike this, like what they did with the last all chick Ghostbuster flick. (which was no where near as bad as the critic panned).
nels1031 wrote: I just want this movie to hurry up and come out so we can talk about cool action scenes, Ben Mendelsohn killing it like he does in every role, cameo's from the late Stan Lee(Maybe?) and other heroes of the MCU, mid credits scenes and post credit scenes and what it means for the future of the MCU. Like a normal superhero flick, I guess.
Yeah, I think Stan got his cameos done for Captain Marvel and Endgame - and then that's it!
As to the quotes of “this movie might not be for...”, I think Yoda said it best: “our own council, we will keep, on whether this movie is for us”.
I’m looking forward to an action packed, sci fi galactic war. If the lead actress is being gakky....well, Robert Downey Jr was an asshat, and look how THAT turned out; he’s the face of the MCU. Just give me a fun movie and I’ll form my own opinion. After all, it’s not like it’s source material that had a giant dump taken on it that everyone, including my own grandmother, knows about; like Spider-Man: Homecoming.
It’s like a reputable, mid market Restaurant. Good food done to a decent, reliable level. Nothing too flashy, and no poncey menu in French where you don’t really know what you’re ordering.
Sure, on occasion your Steak will come out of the kitchen a bit more medium than your preferred medium rare. But it’s never, ever come out incinerated.
Compare to other Franchises. X-Men? Well, it could the medium rare goodness of X-Men 2, or Days of Future Past. Then again, there’s a higher chance it’ll be the Well Done Steak that was the first two Wolverine films, or the ‘what the hell have you done, this is not a Steak, this is a hockey puck you cretins’ of X-Men 3.
Or worse, the DCU method of ‘NO YOU MUST HAVE IT ALL WELL DONE BECAUSE I, ZAK SNYDER, HAVE DECIDED WELL DONE IS GRITTY, WITH A SIDE ORDER OF GRATUITOUS UPSKIRT’
Consistency. That’s what really counts. That’s what gets bums in seats every single time. With consistency, comes consumer confidence. Not just for Sad Old Grognards like me, but for families. And given a family pays way more than I do (tickets, grub, merchandise for mewling brats)l that’s probably far more important. With a MCU film, you can go in confident there’s enough action, and frequently enough, to keep tweens and teens entertained, but without worry it might be too Fighty for younger kids.
To paraphrase a certain Tony Stark?
That’s the way Marvel does it. That’s the way Disney does it. And it’s worked out pretty well so far.
It’s all the more remarkable that, 20 movies in (soon to be 21 in a matter of days), not one has disappointed at the Box Office. 21 movies. Twenty. One. That’s staggering. That’s record breaking. That is frankly utterly bloody amazing,
So they very occasionally upset people with nothing better to do than get upset at stuff. Makes no difference.
So they’ve never produced a true Oscar contender outside of the design aspect. And?
They all make money. Each and every one. All other attempts to replicate and reproduce that method have bombed. Utterly.
DCEU? Turgid. Dull. Too invested in being edgy and emo to bother with a coherent plot and consistent character behaviour.
Universal Monsters? Yeah. Let’s kick it off with Tom Cruise portraying a total, self centred butt monkey. Oh noes! OUR FRANCHISE!!! (On this one, they could’ve so easily incorporated the Brendan Fraser Mummy Movies. Treat them as retrospective prequels if they must).
Only Marvel has cracked it. And Marvel pioneered it.
And even as a True Believer, there were moments I was waiting for it all to go horribly Pete Tong and Mammaries Up. First time was GotG. Too leftfield I thought. Too obscure. Got to see a press screening, and just absolutely loved it. Dr Strange? Much the same. Not really my favourite of the bunch. But they handled it well (though I still maintain Bendyditch Custardsplatch is horribly miscast in the role. What even is his accent. Revenge for You Know Who’s turn in Mary Poppins?), and it raked it in,
Face it. Marvel is a cinematic juggernaut because they just keep on getting it right. It’s not Disney buying off critics. It’s not a misinformation campaign. It’s not some shadowy cabal of feminists doing, I dunno, shadowy feminist cabalistic stuff. They’re just Making damned fun movies. End of.
Universal Monsters? Yeah. Let’s kick it off with Tom Cruise portraying a total, self centred butt monkey. Oh noes! OUR FRANCHISE!!! (On this one, they could’ve so easily incorporated the Brendan Fraser Mummy Movies. Treat them as retrospective prequels if they must).
Technically, they were hoping Dracula Untold would kick this off, but it didn't land. Similarly, DC wanted to do it "right" starting with Green Lantern, then tried again with Man of Steel and decided they were too far behind and had to make due.
I think the Marvel formula is one that's very easy to get wrong when attempting to reverse engineer. For the most part, the films AREN'T really connected or in any way dependent on each other. They're totally self contained stories with almost all the world building being handled by the post credit scenes. The exception here is one of the movies that really doesn't work all that well and when you compare all the attempts to replicate the formula, the Marvel movie they really feel closest to IS Iron Man 2.
In the rest of my Nerdery, the closest approximation to the MCU is actually Discworld.
50 odd books, set on the same planet (Discworld, natch). There are characters that are revisited, and get real development throughout. But, crucially, the casual reader can buy any Discworld novel, and enjoy an entirely self contained story. And a bloody good one at that.
Yes, you do get the most out of them by reading them en masse, and in release order (easy enough, given each copy has a chronological list contained within). But it’s not essential. For me, Nightwatch is the pinnacle of the Nightwatch sub-series. But one doesn’t need to read Guards Guards! or Men at Arms et al to make sense of it. But I’m willing to bet you’ll want to read them all the same.
Pratchett and Marvel. Two colossi bestriding their respective genres. And oddly, both kind of irking their relevant snobs.
I think Sir Terry put it best. Stories of imagination tend to upset those without one.
Consistency. That’s what really counts. That’s what gets bums in seats every single time. With consistency, comes consumer confidence. Not just for Sad Old Grognards like me, but for families. And given a family pays way more than I do (tickets, grub, merchandise for mewling brats)l that’s probably far more important. With a MCU film, you can go in confident there’s enough action, and frequently enough, to keep tweens and teens entertained, but without worry it might be too Fighty for younger kids.
And I feel like this plays right into the changes in theater-going habits.
There isn't much reason to go to a movie theater to see a romcom anymore. Those work just fine on your oversized TV at home, where you can even snuggle up better with your SO. If you're going to see a film in the theater, you probably want to see something big and flashy...but nothing too risky, because who wants to be out $50 ($100ish if you're bringing kids) for something you didn't even like?
Marvel movies hit this spot perfectly...they're big and flashy enough, and tend to do exactly what they say on the can. Their brand identity is unrivaled. Like you said, with a Marvel film you know you're going to get plenty of action, some drama but nothing too heavy, lots of yuks, and nothing too kid-unfriendly or too long.
IMO, there are a good number of Marvel films that are instantly forgettable, and I even put some fan faves like GotG in that category. But they're enjoyable enough for those two hours, and audiences walk out feeling like they had a good experience for their dough. Boom.
In many ways, Marvel has managed to take control of the "water cool talk" void as TV shows have become increasingly disconnected from a unifying schedule. When a show hits, there's often no discussion for a month or so while everyone works through it at their own pace. With Marvel movies, people schedule time to watch it day one because they expect to be talking about it on Monday.
timetowaste85 wrote: well, Robert Downey Jr was an asshat, and look how THAT turned out; he’s the face of the MCU.
Yeah, you really never know. I thought Captain America was a pretty lame comic book character and at the time, Chris Evans was pretty meh, but both wound up pretty amazing.
Maybe I'm late to the news, but apparently Rotten Tomatoes has shut down some parts of its websites in response to misogynistic trolling and review bombing aimed at this movie.
IDK. I'm curious how it'll turn out. I know next to nothing about some aspects of the Marvel universe, and Captain Marvel is one of them. To me, Captain Marvel is the kid who shouts Shazam to change in and out of being a demigod.
I'm sure I'll end up seeing Captain Marvel relatively shortly after it comes out, but from the trailer, it looked very Superman-ey in terms of archetype, which doesn't interest me much.
Beyond that, I know basically nothing about the flick, backstory, comics, etc for this one, so we'll see how it turns out
Kanluwen wrote: Maybe if you don't want to get lumped in with the trolls, you should be more vocal in decrying them and not let them hijack your "arguments".
Their "arguments" have never been my arguments. When I don't like a movie it's because I don't like it, usually because of weak writing or acting. Their argument is that they don't like the movie SPECIFICALLY because it features a minority they dislike - be it women, blacks, asians, or whatever - even if the writing and acting are actually quite good.
But when you try and twist my argument INTO their argument, that's when we'll have a problem, because you are deliberately trying to pick a fight with me at that point.
Kanluwen wrote: Maybe if you don't want to get lumped in with the trolls, you should be more vocal in decrying them and not let them hijack your "arguments".
Their "arguments" have never been my arguments. When I don't like a movie it's because I don't like it, usually because of weak writing or acting. Their argument is that they don't like the movie SPECIFICALLY because it features a minority they dislike - be it women, blacks, asians, or whatever - even if the writing and acting are actually quite good.
But when you try and twist my argument INTO their argument, that's when we'll have a problem, because you are deliberately trying to pick a fight with me at that point.
Then make the argument that you disliked it because of weak writing or acting. Use your words, elaborate upon your position. Make a point to engage with people in a manner that is constructive rather than "NO UR WRONG" or short quips and memes.
Kanluwen wrote: Maybe if you don't want to get lumped in with the trolls, you should be more vocal in decrying them and not let them hijack your "arguments".
Their "arguments" have never been my arguments. When I don't like a movie it's because I don't like it, usually because of weak writing or acting. Their argument is that they don't like the movie SPECIFICALLY because it features a minority they dislike - be it women, blacks, asians, or whatever - even if the writing and acting are actually quite good.
But when you try and twist my argument INTO their argument, that's when we'll have a problem, because you are deliberately trying to pick a fight with me at that point.
Then make the argument that you disliked it because of weak writing or acting. Use your words, elaborate upon your position. Make a point to engage with people in a manner that is constructive rather than "NO UR WRONG" or short quips and memes.
This isn't hard to avoid being lumped in.
And yet when we had this discussion about the other big Disney franchise and why I didn't like it the inevitable response was to talk about racist, sexist pigs and trolls and that since I didn't like it I must be one.
Kanluwen wrote: Maybe if you don't want to get lumped in with the trolls, you should be more vocal in decrying them and not let them hijack your "arguments".
Their "arguments" have never been my arguments. When I don't like a movie it's because I don't like it, usually because of weak writing or acting. Their argument is that they don't like the movie SPECIFICALLY because it features a minority they dislike - be it women, blacks, asians, or whatever - even if the writing and acting are actually quite good.
But when you try and twist my argument INTO their argument, that's when we'll have a problem, because you are deliberately trying to pick a fight with me at that point.
Then make the argument that you disliked it because of weak writing or acting. Use your words, elaborate upon your position. Make a point to engage with people in a manner that is constructive rather than "NO UR WRONG" or short quips and memes.
This isn't hard to avoid being lumped in.
And yet when we had this discussion about the other big Disney franchise and why I didn't like it the inevitable response was to talk about racist, sexist pigs and trolls and that since I didn't like it I must be one.
And nobody i have seen has called you a bigot for disliking a movie. Wether you lumped yourself in with bigots because of media or whatever is something i honestly cant remember.
nels1031 wrote: I just want this movie to hurry up and come out so we can talk about cool action scenes, Ben Mendelsohn killing it like he does in every role, cameo's from the late Stan Lee(Maybe?) and other heroes of the MCU, mid credits scenes and post credit scenes and what it means for the future of the MCU. Like a normal superhero flick, I guess.
Yeah, I think Stan got his cameos done for Captain Marvel and Endgame - and then that's it!
You don’t think they’ll CGI him in, or cut his image from various other video and splice that into new content?
I’m conflicted because its kinda weird (like Peter Cushing in Rogue One), but I’d be ok if Stan Lee’s estate authorized it. It’d almost be like a timeless memorial or something.
The reason the Cushings thing didn't really look right is you need someone whos face has the same points of geometry that move in the right kinds of ways.
It's "easy" to de-age Michael Douglas because Michael Douglas is wearing the dots and his smile or scowl is his smile or scowl. But who do you get to play Stan Lee? Whose face will move in the same ways so it doesn't look rubbery and weird?
21 Marvel movies. The only other franchise I can think of that's similar is Bond with 25 (plus Never Say never Again which doesn't count), and to my mind that's much more variable. I mean, I'm not really bothered about Thor: The Dark World, but it's still better than some of the grottier Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan outings. And that's over eleven years, not 53.
Ouze wrote: Review bombing in specific seems to be counterproductive. It has been happening on Steam for a while now, and the usual effect is a boost in visibility and then sales for the game being bombed. It's really a Streisand effect, ultimately.
Except no review bombing took place.
But don't listen to me.
Listen to an actual journalist (and a left-wing one to boot! ):
And the worst part about all of this nonsense? None of it will be in the film. It'll just be another Marvel Origin Story™, good or bad (and most Marvel films are good, there haven't been any bombs) and all of this crap will blow over.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Any chance of an abstract, for those of us who can't watch the video? Who's lying, and what lies are "they" telling?
He seems to be saying what I have been saying all along, people are upset at the marketing and brie larsons racist/sexist comments, they used RT to leave a "want to watch" comments and said they didnt want to watch it on those grounds, using the function as a form of protest against such marketing/actions, now RT has removed this function is favour of censoring people legitimate concerns, they used "ism/phobes/ists" as an excuse for these actions in order to "poison the well" or delegitimise those views.
Long story short, no review bombing happened, the only people who calling it that were the "activist journalists" (self confessed) and the paid for reviewers, so no one trustworthy in the first place.
Edit: He also thinks its was done to stop these journalists constantly making mistakes about the review system.
Otherwise, I'd have applied for a job at the ASA, and be utterly draconic in my rulings.
of course its important, its the thing that gets bums in seats, dont advertise AT ALL in ANY WAY, and no one every knows your film exists..... now if that marketing gives a specific image of the film and its perceived as "problamatic" to use the far lefts parlance, well, guess what happens, in fact i dont need to guess, we can look at the sheer amount of far lefties that have mobbed on movies over the years for this exact reason, scarlet johansons cancelled movie is a good example, she was going to play a trans person and the extreme left wing mob fell upon her as she is not trans, nevermind she would have brought a lot of people to see the movie based on her name, nevermind she is a woman, nope, the ever hypocritical fools decided to stop it, based on the FIRST wave of marketing alone.
You've got upset by it, for no discernible reason other than 'opinion I don't care for expressed'.
What does it matter? Does anyone really give a monkey's outside those posting their displeasure by saying they don't want to see the film? Because they didn't like something this one person said that one time.
As for Scarlett Johanson? Casting a cis person as a trans person is taking away already limited roles from trans people. And there are trans actors and actresses out there. Whilst I do not defend extreme action of any kind, this is broadly similar to Black Face. You want a trans character? You want a gay character? You want a black character? You want a Chinese character? All those groups have, shock horror actors amongst them. Why not make use of them?
That's swings and roundabouts however. If you're an actor (playing pretend), it should be based on your ability, not if you happen to be gay or not, cis or whatever. No one would bat an eye if a gay actor played a straight character, it should be the same the other way. You get the part on your proven ability, that should be the only factor that matters.
You've got upset by it, for no discernible reason other than 'opinion I don't care for expressed'.
What does it matter? Does anyone really give a monkey's outside those posting their displeasure by saying they don't want to see the film? Because they didn't like something this one person said that one time.
As for Scarlett Johanson? Casting a cis person as a trans person is taking away already limited roles from trans people. And there are trans actors and actresses out there. Whilst I do not defend extreme action of any kind, this is broadly similar to Black Face. You want a trans character? You want a gay character? You want a black character? You want a Chinese character? All those groups have, shock horror actors amongst them. Why not make use of them?
So lets take that reasoning to its logical conclusion, only criminals can play a criminal role, no race swapping is allowed as that takes away a white/black/asian role away from them, only a paraplegic can play those roles, nevermind that these people are so rare finding even one that can act would be a miracle.
its pure nonsense, its pandering and totally ignores how difficult it is to find the right person for the role in the first place, but i dont expect you to understand these things.
"cis person"
I think you meant straight white female there mate
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Casualty wrote: Any clarification on what was racist or sexist about her comments yet
Yep loads, its all about context, had she made that statement in isolation then yes, there would be a good argument that she was being taken out of context, however just go and take a look at the long string of such comments from her and then you will understand the anti white, anti male rhetoric she spews on a fairly regular basis, but its ok, because she is on the "right side"
Like i have said many times, fighting racism with racism is still racism, two wrongs do not make a right.
Inquisitor Gideon wrote: That's swings and roundabouts however. If you're an actor (playing pretend), it should be based on your ability, not if you happen to be gay or not, cis or whatever. No one would bat an eye if a gay actor played a straight character, it should be the same the other way. You get the part on your proven ability, that should be the only factor that matters.
Exactly this, i totally agree.
We all know why Johanson was cast for the role, she puts bums in seats, people know who she is, she is a good actor and would easily be able to do the role, but because of the mob this movie has been cancelled and the public exposure the plight of trans people have has been lost, because of the mob, not the "trolls" not the "alt right" only because of the idiots, these self same idiots that will wash their hands and walk away, blame others and claim no responsibility.
hyperthetically this film could have come out and led to even more roles becoming available for trans people if it proved popular, now that avenue is closed for god knows how long.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Haighus wrote: A straight white female can be trans. I think you need to look up the meanings of "cis" and "trans", they don't mean what you think they mean.
Link to the comments? I don't spend my time trawling Twitter.
already provided links earlier in the thread.
Also quoted earlier in the thread, rather than repeating it i urge you to just go and take a look or click my post history.
And i know what they mean, I am just making fun of the made up term being used, they are terms used only by a very specific set of people, they are not common parlance.
Clarification: Cis is not common parlance, Trans is.
one could not help but note the two videos called " Leftist Media is LYING about Captain Marvel Reviews" and "Captain Marvel Audience Score WORST for MCU EVER??!"
or "CAPTAIN MARVEL Review Bombing?? No, Many People Just Don't Like ACTIVIST Movies"
so clearly he's a reliable and unbiased source of information here.
Tim pool is a lefty redson, not all of his fans are, by your logic then all marvel films are alt right as they have alt right fans and support the alt right because of having alt right fans.
Also Gab was a message board used by the same idiots I have been decrying since the start, the new Gab App though may catch on and be very important for sharing ideas and discourse as it allows you to comment on sites that dont allow comments, hopefully it doesnt get taken over by the RW trolls though :(
Automatically Appended Next Post: wait, are you one of those people that only reads the titles and makes a judgement on that alone Redson?
Speaking of trolls, Nerdotic covered the comments, wow so much hate hahah
I'm still not really sure what all the controversy is about here, and the headlines on all the articles/videos about it I find lead me to believe they won't give me a non-partisan breakdown of events.
Incidentally, when did it become de rigeur for these idiots to put 'DESTROYS' in all their video titles?
.. I think we come from quite different ideas of what left wing is.
Also Gab was a message board used by the same idiots
Gab is literally twiiter for nazis and the lat right.
, the new Gab App though may catch on and be very important for sharing ideas and discourse as it allows you to comment on sites that dont allow comments, hopefully it doesnt get taken over by the RW trolls though :(
.....avoid any offers with regards to magic beans anyone makes towards you.
Casualty wrote: Any clarification on what was racist or sexist about her comments yet
Yep loads, its all about context, had she made that statement in isolation then yes, there would be a good argument that she was being taken out of context, however just go and take a look at the long string of such comments from her and then you will understand the anti white, anti male rhetoric she spews on a fairly regular basis, but its ok, because she is on the "right side".
Not really, actually. People keep questioning that, but all the responses are oddly vague and fuzzy.
Please indulge me, as if it's not self evident. Tell me, as specifically as possible, what she said that has you this many pages worth of worked up, and why that is.
Formosa wrote:Tim pool is a lefty redson, not all of his fans are, by your logic then all marvel films are alt right as they have alt right fans and support the alt right because of having alt right fans.
.. I think we come from quite different ideas of what left wing is.
What I think Formosa means (and what Tim Pool actually says) is that he is a liberal, not a leftist. There is a big difference nowadays between the two with many leftists ideals being only slightly less authoritarian in practice than Stalin's Five Year Plan.
Yup, no review bombing but rather individuals simply using the site feature as intended. This wasn't another fictious russian bot campaign like was claimed with Last Jedi to save face although it was an uptick of like minded individuals (calling it a coordinated campaign would be an insult to real coordination though). That uptick though is just a piss drop in the bucket compared with the entire potential movie going audience until proven otherwise. Rotten Tomatoes simply didn't like the results they were getting and likely were getting pressure from Disney threatening to pull their massive advertising budget if they didn't respond.
And the worst part about all of this nonsense? None of it will be in the film. It'll just be another Marvel Origin Story™, good or bad (and most Marvel films are good, there haven't been any bombs) and all of this crap will blow over.
Probably. It's usually not the first movie that suffers the fan backlash blowback but rather the second. The Last Jedi soured many fans but they had already spent money to see it themselves and was still very profitable (albeit much less than the derivative Force Awakens) so Solo was the one that actually bombed by Star Wars standards. If and only if Captain Marvel is mediocre to bad (unlikely) will Brie Larson's sexist/racist comments that most folks don't know or care about have a real effect beyond the opening weekend but I don't think there is any chance that it will bomb.
Also quoted earlier in the thread, rather than repeating it i urge you to just go and take a look or click my post history.
Had a look at the links you posted on pg. 24, I don't see anything untoward at all? Most of the links are opnion pieces done by random journalists, one of them doesn't do anything except post the link to the trailer, and the others have minimal stuff by Marvel direct about the film, and are more discussing that Captain Marvel is potentially lip-service that doesn't go far enough, rather than being a feminist icon. Brie herself mentions some stuff about how it is an empowering movie for young women, which I don't at all see the controversy about. Women make up over half the population, it is hardly controversial to go for their wallets. One of the articles even discusses the psychological effects of modern society on young women (with links), and how some of that is likely linked to poor representation (again, not a difficult leap to make). Honestly, I don't see the overt feminist angle beyond "we should probably make some heroes for half the population".
And i know what they mean, I am just making fun of the made up term being used, they are terms used only by a very specific set of people, they are not common parlance.
Clarification: Cis is not common parlance, Trans is.
Made up term? All terms are made up. Take the word "dog"- its ancestor first appears out of nowhere in Anglo-Saxon English, and then somehow gradually replaces the venerable (and well-attested) hound as the primary term for mans' best friend in English. Cis and trans are not new this millennium, or even the preceding two. Of course, the use as an abbreviation for cisgender is modern, but words change meaning and new words are crafted by sticking together bits of old words all the time. In this context, cisgender makes an extremely logical counterpoint to transgender, and is readily understandable to a lot of people who will never have had the word explained to them (because cis- and trans- are used in that way in multiple other applications, notably chemistry. Anyone who has done at least A-level chemistry will understand the terms without explanation). It is commonplace amongst my age group, it will become the norm over the next few years. Language changes. You may have noticed I used the phrase "mans' best friend" above- this is using the word man in its original, Old English meaning as a cognate to human or person. The word mankind still uses man in this way. Man has evolved to mean a male human over time, originally men were called wer.
It is very short-sighted to decry a term as "made up" when language is far from immutable. It does not strengthen your point, and in fact weakens it that you feel a perfectly valid, useful term needs to be attached to a bunch of unrelated parameters that are not mutually exclusive with being cis/trans. It really only suggests that you feel those parameters are being attacked in someway, and that the phrase cis is a method by which this is done- hence why I stated you do not seem to know what it means. If you do know what it means, then that is just willful misrepresentation for some agenda of yours.
Casualty wrote: Any clarification on what was racist or sexist about her comments yet
Yep loads, its all about context, had she made that statement in isolation then yes, there would be a good argument that she was being taken out of context, however just go and take a look at the long string of such comments from her and then you will understand the anti white, anti male rhetoric she spews on a fairly regular basis, but its ok, because she is on the "right side".
Not really, actually. People keep questioning that, but all the responses are oddly vague and fuzzy.
Please indulge me, as if it's not self evident. Tell me, as specifically as possible, what she said that has you this many pages worth of worked up, and why that is.
Frazzled wrote: OK, I watched the trailer with Mr. Snakes on a Plane. Am I the only one who sees and is unnerved by the CGI work on his face while he talks?
Yeah, it's not good. Worse than Henry Cavil's mustache coverup in Justice League.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are many people that have told me that we need to separate the actor from the movie. That it's not fair to judge the movie even if the actor is a douche.
While I tend to agree, many of these people are the same ones that wanted to boycott Mel Gibson movies over his controversies.
cuda1179 wrote: There are many people that have told me that we need to separate the actor from the movie. That it's not fair to judge the movie even if the actor is a douche.
Yeah, I've heard that, but I don't know that I agree with it. If you (for example) go see a Roman Polanski movie, you're putting money in his pockets. There isn't any other way to slice it.
I find it really hard to handwave away odious acts away from the responsible artists and I'm not sure it's even a good idea to try.
cuda1179 wrote: There are many people that have told me that we need to separate the actor from the movie. That it's not fair to judge the movie even if the actor is a douche.
Yeah, I've heard that, but I don't know that I agree with it. If you (for example) go see a Roman Polanski movie, you're putting money in his pockets. There isn't any other way to slice it.
I find it really hard to handwave away odious acts away from the responsible artists and I'm not sure it's even a good idea to try.
So only watch such films on dodgy internet sites of dubious legality? No money will reach Mr Polanski from those sites. Well, unless he also runs a spam advert company, which wouldn't surprise me.
Casualty wrote: Any clarification on what was racist or sexist about her comments yet
Yep loads, its all about context, had she made that statement in isolation then yes, there would be a good argument that she was being taken out of context, however just go and take a look at the long string of such comments from her and then you will understand the anti white, anti male rhetoric she spews on a fairly regular basis, but its ok, because she is on the "right side".
Not really, actually. People keep questioning that, but all the responses are oddly vague and fuzzy.
Please indulge me, as if it's not self evident. Tell me, as specifically as possible, what she said that has you this many pages worth of worked up, and why that is.
Well that really depends on you too, you may not see an issue with targeting a specific race and gender and claiming it needs to be fixed as racist/sexist, its down to your own personal bias that we all have.
But trying to be objective (as much as one can be) would you consider this racist?
Excluding black woman from a press tour based ONLY upon their racial or sexual characteristics, not upon their own merits, do you find it acceptable to target any race based upon just their skintone, would it be ok to say that there are too many hispanic critics in a hispanic country? would you find it ok if any other person came out and said "captain america is only for white people, white soldiers, i only want hear what they think, it was made for them, not black woman, not asian woman"
Do you find any of that acceptable, as for context, Brie larson is an open far left activist, she has made sexist comments in the past, she has openly stated that this movie is her form of activism.
We are not misrepresenting her, she is open about what she is doing and what she has said, and like I keep saying, i do not find fighting sexism with sexism acceptable or racism with racism acceptable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Had a look at the links you posted on pg. 24, I don't see anything untoward at all? Most of the links are opnion pieces done by random journalists, one of them doesn't do anything except post the link to the trailer, and the others have minimal stuff by Marvel direct about the film, and are more discussing that Captain Marvel is potentially lip-service that doesn't go far enough, rather than being a feminist icon. Brie herself mentions some stuff about how it is an empowering movie for young women, which I don't at all see the controversy about. Women make up over half the population, it is hardly controversial to go for their wallets. One of the articles even discusses the psychological effects of modern society on young women (with links), and how some of that is likely linked to poor representation (again, not a difficult leap to make). Honestly, I don't see the overt feminist angle beyond "we should probably make some heroes for half the population".
Did you read the post? really? I dont think you did, they were links to her comments AND the original interview in which she stated such things, the rest are examples of the media bias in her favour and proof of the terrible marketing choices they have made around this movie.
Made up term? All terms are made up. Take the word "dog"- its ancestor first appears out of nowhere in Anglo-Saxon English, and then somehow gradually replaces the venerable (and well-attested) hound as the primary term for mans' best friend in English. Cis and trans are not new this millennium, or even the preceding two. Of course, the use as an abbreviation for cisgender is modern, but words change meaning and new words are crafted by sticking together bits of old words all the time. In this context, cisgender makes an extremely logical counterpoint to transgender, and is readily understandable to a lot of people who will never have had the word explained to them (because cis- and trans- are used in that way in multiple other applications, notably chemistry. Anyone who has done at least A-level chemistry will understand the terms without explanation). It is commonplace amongst my age group, it will become the norm over the next few years. Language changes. You may have noticed I used the phrase "mans' best friend" above- this is using the word man in its original, Old English meaning as a cognate to human or person. The word mankind still uses man in this way. Man has evolved to mean a male human over time, originally men were called wer.
It is very short-sighted to decry a term as "made up" when language is far from immutable. It does not strengthen your point, and in fact weakens it that you feel a perfectly valid, useful term needs to be attached to a bunch of unrelated parameters that are not mutually exclusive with being cis/trans. It really only suggests that you feel those parameters are being attacked in someway, and that the phrase cis is a method by which this is done- hence why I stated you do not seem to know what it means. If you do know what it means, then that is just willful misrepresentation for some agenda of yours.
They can use any term they like and i can mock it for being a forced term that has no basis in reality and is not an organic continuation of the language, hence its lack if use in common parlance outside of a specific ideological grouping, if you want to use it, crack on, no issue, i wont use it though because of the ideological backing behind it and the intent to force a language change in order to suit an agenda i dont agree with, had this been an organic change like your examples above then we would not be having this conversation and i would already be using the term, as for proof of it being forced, in the UK people have been put in prison or convicted of a crime for not using the correct pronouns, including losing their jobs, I wont play the game so I mock it, as is my right.
LunarSol wrote: Most words are an organic continuation of language. You just might not be part of the communications they evolved from.
A completely fair point, but like i said, i will not be compelled to use a term, a term that is actually used as a derogatory term by a specific set of ideologues I disagree with, maybe in 10-15 years time it will be the norm, i dont know, but right now its not and people are actively trying to force its use and using the law in an immoral way to support their ideology, but this is a bad tangent to go down, anyone can feel free to PM me to carry on this tangent.
Anyways. I’ll be off to see it on Saturday 9th, on account I’ve got a colleague’s birthday dinner on the 8th, and will then need to get the train back from Nodnol, leaving no time to go see it on release day.
Really wondering if we’ll get a credits sting this time around.
We didn’t with Homecoming, and that immediately preceded Infinty War. So we may get the same treatment here.
Or it’ll be a ‘20 years later’ (or whatever) type thing, of her receiving Nick’s page.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Anyways. I’ll be off to see it on Saturday 9th, on account I’ve got a colleague’s birthday dinner on the 8th, and will then need to get the train back from Nodnol, leaving no time to go see it on release day.
Really wondering if we’ll get a credits sting this time around.
We didn’t with Homecoming, and that immediately preceded Infinty War. So we may get the same treatment here.
Or it’ll be a ‘20 years later’ (or whatever) type thing, of her receiving Nick’s page.
I look forward to hearing what you have to say on the film Doc I hope you enjoy the film.
I’m not really one to offer insightful feedback to be honest.
I’ll say if I like something, of course. And mention fave bits. Same if I don’t enjoy something. Only rarely (Night Train Murders. DO NOT WATCH THAT FILM IT IS HORRIFIC) do I actively feedback when I’ve not.
I’ll say if I like something, of course. And mention fave bits. Same if I don’t enjoy something. Only rarely (Night Train Murders. DO NOT WATCH THAT FILM IT IS HORRIFIC) do I actively feedback when I’ve not.
As i have harped on about ad nauseum, i trust the fans over these "review" sites, so if you like it then that is a damn site better than any journalists review to me, we may not agree on everything but i respect your opinion.
I’ll say if I like something, of course. And mention fave bits. Same if I don’t enjoy something. Only rarely (Night Train Murders. DO NOT WATCH THAT FILM IT IS HORRIFIC) do I actively feedback when I’ve not.
As i have harped on about ad nauseum, i trust the fans over these "review" sites, so if you like it then that is a damn site better than any journalists review to me, we may not agree on everything but i respect your opinion.
What the Picard said. I've lost my faith in reviews, when dooseys like TLJ were given good reviews.
Speaking as someone the has rarely read anything Cpt. Marvel related, what's up with her Mohawk hairdo when she has on the hood part of her costume? Was this ever in the comics? Frankly, it just looks stupid to me.
cuda1179 wrote: Speaking as someone the has rarely read anything Cpt. Marvel related, what's up with her Mohawk hairdo when she has on the hood part of her costume? Was this ever in the comics? Frankly, it just looks stupid to me.
It was, early on, until she ditched the mask. I don't think she'll have it long, it's just a thing for comic fans.
Mohawks are often a Marvel visual signature for alien races generally though. Think Yondu from GotG or Gladiator, you might know from the X Men cartoons.
I’ll say if I like something, of course. And mention fave bits. Same if I don’t enjoy something. Only rarely (Night Train Murders. DO NOT WATCH THAT FILM IT IS HORRIFIC) do I actively feedback when I’ve not.
As i have harped on about ad nauseum, i trust the fans over these "review" sites, so if you like it then that is a damn site better than any journalists review to me, we may not agree on everything but i respect your opinion.
What the Picard said. I've lost my faith in reviews, when dooseys like TLJ were given good reviews.
Never had any. My view is Trust yourself - watch the trailer, make your descision and live it. If you need to be told what to like and why - thats up to you
Frazzled wrote: OK, I watched the trailer with Mr. Snakes on a Plane. Am I the only one who sees and is unnerved by the CGI work on his face while he talks?
Yeah, it's not good. Worse than Henry Cavil's mustache coverup in Justice League.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are many people that have told me that we need to separate the actor from the movie. That it's not fair to judge the movie even if the actor is a douche.
While I tend to agree, many of these people are the same ones that wanted to boycott Mel Gibson movies over his controversies.
Nor is it fair to negatively judge the actor/actress for doing their best in a bad or poorly received movie, but Hollywood does it daily by not giving them roles. Not to mention the idiots judging Kelly Marie Tran for doing her best with the sewage sandwich that was her part in TLJ...
EDIT: No, I'm going to leave this one in. It's a point worth making even if it's not entirely on subject.
If someone I know is not being paid to give a good review, gives a good review, then I will take it on board and use it to consider if I want to spend money on the film, this is what reviewers are supposed to do, so if Doc gives it a good review I will use his review and others from the general public and then decide if I want to see it in the cinema, normally I would just go and see it, I don't feel like I can for this one, I felt the same about infinity war, I thought it would be a CGI headache.
Otherwise me and frazzled could end up spending £70+ (family, popcorn, tickets) on a terrible movie in the off chance it's good
Not saying your wrong or anything mordon, just explaining myself.
Some of my friends think the movie will be a gak show and will avoid it. Then again, one of those friends thinks Tokyo Drift is the best Fast & Furious film and thinks Heat is an awful film. The other one said that the first Avengers film was ok, but Battleship was better. I don't listen to them much.
He is. He quite often states his bias and Democrat-voting leanings. He's not some random YouTuber.
But if you want to just react to headlines rather than listen to him, then you're just as bad as the rest of them.
Ouze wrote: Yeah, I've heard that, but I don't know that I agree with it. If you (for example) go see a Roman Polanski movie, you're putting money in his pockets. There isn't any other way to slice it.
I find it really hard to handwave away odious acts away from the responsible artists and I'm not sure it's even a good idea to try.
I don't see how it takes away from anything those people have done.
Using a more contemporary example (in more ways than one), Kevin Spacey's performance in Bryan Singer's Usual Suspects is fantastic. His own personal history will never take away from that (nor Bryan's, for that matter). If you view everything through a lens of who the person is then you'll never enjoy anything.
If you cannot separate the art from the artist then some day someone will get removed from directing a Marvel movie because of jokes made a decade ago... oh wait...
I know I am pretty solid on the fact that no amount of internet vitriol is going to sour the fact that Captain Marvel looks like it'll be a fun, cool movie, just from the trailers alone. Double positive that my wife is eager to watch it with me. So its a big "shrug" for me.
I could care less what Brie Larson declares, one way or the other. All that matters to me is that she makes a good Captain Marvel for 2 hours. Supposedly Scarlet Johanssen is a raving witch to work with, and I like most of her roles.
Fully agree with HBMC. I honestly couldn't care less what actors and directors do or say in their spare time. I do not watch films and TV shows to be friends with the people involved in those productions, I watch them to be entertained and nothing else. Hearing what Mel Gibson has to say about certain ethnic groups did not make me enjoy Braveheart or Lethal Weapon any less, and Brie Larson's activism sure as hell won't make any difference to me when I watch Captain Marvel.
The notion that 'you're still putting money in their pockets' also comes off as bollocks. They've already been paid their millions to star in the production, and what of the legions of other people involved? Do I deny everyone my business because one person involved said something stupid or did something gakky? I would never get to watch anything if that were the case. People say and do stupid gak all the time, it's perfectly human. Sure it sucks, but expecting every entertainer to have their moral compass dialed in to what you find acceptable is total lunacy.
It's one thing to ignore political opinions, ignorance, or anything that's just words, but I struggle to understand how someone can consciously watch a movie or art where a major player (i.e. director) is a known child molester. It's not about putting money in their pocket. Someone like Singer is already wealthy. It's about not knowingly spending money on the work of a rapist.
Ouze wrote: Man, I thought "raped a child" was a low bar to hurdle, moral compass wise.
That's disingenuous and you know it Ouze.
But, to answer your heavily implied notion that we're somehow fine with child rape, does Polansky's personal actions somehow make Chinatown less of a piece of filmic history? Does it invalidate all the work that the hundreds of people who weren't Roman Polansky did on that film?
Chthulu Mythos is very interesting, and has spawned so many products and off shoots that it's nearly uncountable. Lovecraft himself was a raging anti-semite... so... should we throw out all the Chthulu stuff? Mel Gibson's been brought up in this thread already. He's not a nice person, to say it lightly. Perhaps even a little bit nuts. Does that somehow make him undeserving of the Best Director Oscar he won for Braveheart? Should he give it back?
To be fair, watching a piece of media produced by a bad person is one thing, but honouring that person is another. Maybe Gibson should have his gong revoked for being an arse- that sets a good role model for society to follow. You can still go watch Braveheart if you want, but I don't see why that means Gibson should be above reproach and face no consequences.
All literature reviews are the author's opinion. It's only when people start treating them as anything you can take individually as fact that there's a problem. Pick a reviewer, read a few of their reviews of your favourite films and see what it is about them that they like or dislike, then use that as a guideline.
I don't look at review scores; they're all worthless, and Rotten Tomatos and the like are making a fortune over peddling snake oil. I read what was written, and see if I agree with it. Usually i go with the trailers, but then again they're no less misleading. Ultimately the only way to find out if you'll like a film is to watch it. That's what the studios rely on, unfortunately - all this hype, the marketing, special preview screenings - it's all to get people into cinemas on the opening night, before they've had time to listen to their mates tell them not to bother because it's crap.
Ouze wrote: Man, I thought "raped a child" was a low bar to hurdle, moral compass wise.
TIL
I'm obviously not condoning child rape, but you knew that already.
trexmeyer wrote: It's one thing to ignore political opinions, ignorance, or anything that's just words, but I struggle to understand how someone can consciously watch a movie or art where a major player (i.e. director) is a known child molester. It's not about putting money in their pocket. Someone like Singer is already wealthy. It's about not knowingly spending money on the work of a rapist.
To what end though? If the purpose is to punish these people and let them know what they're doing is not okay, that's what the legal system is for. If not for that, what other reason could there be? And it still doesn't address the problem of the countless others involved in their production. Do they all deserve to have their work reduced to 'a bad person directed this film, therefore it is not worth watching'? That just seems totally ridiculous to me.
Formosa wrote: If someone I know is not being paid to give a good review, gives a good review, then I will take it on board and use it to consider if I want to spend money on the film, this is what reviewers are supposed to do, so if Doc gives it a good review I will use his review and others from the general public and then decide if I want to see it in the cinema, normally I would just go and see it, I don't feel like I can for this one, I felt the same about infinity war, I thought it would be a CGI headache.
Otherwise me and frazzled could end up spending £70+ (family, popcorn, tickets) on a terrible movie in the off chance it's good
Not saying your wrong or anything mordon, just explaining myself.
Fair enough :0 I have never needed to reference a review myself - the Trailer tends to tell me what I want to know - I might ask friends what they think but they are not me so its not that helpful...... Its very rare I watch a film at the cinema i don't like and then its almost always because i am just going with friends: See Scream, Last Jedi, Wanted and a few others, all films I hated.
Ok, so maybe what I posted could have had some nuance. I wasn't intending to imply anyone was OK with child rape, although I see how that's how it came across. My bad, that was my poor communication.
I picked Roman Polanski because I assumed he would be the most non-controversial, extreme example of people in show business that you don't want to subsidize; a guy who admitted to raping a child.
creeping-deth87 wrote: The notion that 'you're still putting money in their pockets' also comes off as bollocks. They've already been paid their millions to star in the production, and what of the legions of other people involved? Do I deny everyone my business because one person involved said something stupid or did something gakky? I would never get to watch anything if that were the case. People say and do stupid gak all the time, it's perfectly human. Sure it sucks, but expecting every entertainer to have their moral compass dialed in to what you find acceptable is total lunacy.
First, I disagree with the idea that you're not putting money in the pockets of these people when you see their movies. Yes, they did already get paid a flat rate, but almost all of the big stars get paid a percentage of box office, as well as residuals. So yes, if you buy a movie ticket for an odious personality, you're directly putting money in their pockets.
Putting that aside (although there is no honest reason to do so), movies are a business and if you pay to buy tickets to a movie, you're create a job for that person. This isn't some weird, extrapolated out morality: Odious people get paid because there is a demand for their work. So, directly subsized or indirectly subsidized, it makes no difference.
H.B.M.C. wrote: But, to answer your heavily implied notion that we're somehow fine with child rape, does Polansky's personal actions somehow make Chinatown less of a piece of filmic history?
No, but it does mean I don't want to subsidize his work anymore. I think we should draw a distinction between someone who did something terrible and is unrepentant (Roman Polanski, Mel Gibson) and someone who did something wrong and apologized for it, or at least made an effort at redemption.
And while it probably doesn't even need to be said, to be 100% clear, we better draw a distinction in terms of degree between even the worst possible interpretation of what Brie Larsen said, James Gunn, etc, and people like Roman Polanski. That would be an unacceptably wide brush.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Does it invalidate all the work that the hundreds of people who weren't Roman Polansky did on that film?
This is a tough question and I don't have a good answer. Sorry if that comes across as a cop-out.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Chthulu Mythos is very interesting, and has spawned so many products and off shoots that it's nearly uncountable. Lovecraft himself was a raging anti-semite... so... should we throw out all the Chthulu stuff?
I think we can at least measure people by the times they lived in. Abraham Lincoln can look bad if you take a few isolated things he said and look at them in a vacuum.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Mel Gibson's been brought up in this thread already. He's not a nice person, to say it lightly. Perhaps even a little bit nuts. Does that somehow make him undeserving of the Best Director Oscar he won for Braveheart? Should he give it back?
No, because he got that Oscar in 1995. I don't think it was established he was a hideous human being for another 15 years.
Frazzled wrote: OK, I watched the trailer with Mr. Snakes on a Plane. Am I the only one who sees and is unnerved by the CGI work on his face while he talks?
Yeah, it's not good. Worse than Henry Cavil's mustache coverup in Justice League.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are many people that have told me that we need to separate the actor from the movie. That it's not fair to judge the movie even if the actor is a douche.
While I tend to agree, many of these people are the same ones that wanted to boycott Mel Gibson movies over his controversies.
Nor is it fair to negatively judge the actor/actress for doing their best in a bad or poorly received movie, but Hollywood does it daily by not giving them roles. Not to mention the idiots judging Kelly Marie Tran for doing her best with the sewage sandwich that was her part in TLJ...
EDIT: No, I'm going to leave this one in. It's a point worth making even if it's not entirely on subject.
There have been plenty of good actors that made their bones in bad movies, but yes sometimes it impacts them badly-especially tentpole movies.
Well no one seems to want to talk about the Captain Marvel movie at this point so I’m going to lock this down. Feel free to open a new one when someone has seen the movie and wants to talk about it. Thanks!
I am sure RDJ will pop in for cameos for a suitcase of money or just do his voice.
but thats a toooootally different conversation to have 
And, it'd be truly sad that others would try to spike this, like what they did with the last all chick Ghostbuster flick. (which was no where near as bad as the critic panned).
