Nice. Curious how much of that de-aging tech they're going to use and nice way to set the time period. Looks like the movie is going to mostly be a Skrull hunt. In some ways it feels more like one of Marvel's earlier movies than their newer stuff. Expecting more of a Dr. Strange than Black Panther, but excited to see how it turns out.
Excited for this. Given the recent Marvel fare has perhaps understandably been more ensemble, switching back to what looks to be a single hero story could be refreshing. And I’d argue the perfect antidote to the crazy brilliant of Infinity War.
I was already looking forward to this, but that trailer has upped my excitement massively. It looks stunning and if the score is anything like the trailer music, it may become one of the best Marvel scores yet
As much as the MCU keeps telling us Captain Marvel is the strongest/most powerful hero in the MCU, that got me to thinking, who is Marvel's "Superman"?
I'm a lifelong comics fan, and there isn't an easy, obvious answer.
I am stretching it a bit because while Marvel has some that are just like him in terms of powers and origin (Hyperion) and 'overall' strength/ability, none seem to have the same popularity/staying power/pretense today.
Sentry? No way.
Gladiator? He's pretty niche himself.
Blue Marvel? Newish and retcon city, but maybe, but then, who has heard of him?
In the comics, you could argue that Marvel's Superman is Thor, and maybe the new MCU super-charged Thor is on that level now?
So...Captain Marvel? And not Shazam/Captain Marvel, obviously.
I don't seem to ever remember Captain Marvel/Carol D every really being on that level.
Because a single ‘AND THE ABCDMAN ARRIVES ALL ARE FIX’ is too much of a narrative crutch.
And to be clear, I’m not criticising Supes as a character. He was the first in that pantheon.
But if you have no Supes, it force narrative originality to some degree, a situation which really forces the writer to explore the potential and teamwork dynamic of the roster.
Supes, through not fault of his creators, just does too much. He’s too infallible, and to my mind and my mind alone, really boring because of it.
Compare the JLA to Avengers. Avengers are arguably more heroic because they’re all somehow dysfunctional. JLA? Ah bollocks to it. We’ll just sit and wait for Supes to sort it all out, because compared to him, we’re unavoidably bit part.
Again, this is not a criticism of D.C. as an entity, or Superman as a character. It’s just Supes is so stupid hard, he makes all other characters pointless.
Carol has generally always been a pretty heavy hitter. I mean, arguably her most mainstream use is sadly when Rogue absorbed her and acted as something of the X-Men's Superman. Not really Superman powerful, but still a powerhouse. Carol herself has gone through a number of cosmic power boosts over the years as she's returned to the spotlight; notably having the power of a star in her Binary form.
I think Marvel is finding her well suited for the role as their Superman as time goes on and has essentially been testing the waters to figure out the best way to make it happen. They've been building her up as a character for years now; at least since Bendis was writing Avengers. In terms of power, I don't think Marvel really wants or need a real Superman powered character. As a cosmic level character that works as an Avenger, I think they've got her about right.
I'll see it for Jackson, who's always great, but I'm not sold on the rest.
I'm betting on another CGI heavy, quip loaded Marvel film with a forgettable villain.
Superman's problems are generally in keeping with other speedsters. It's fun to write a two panel joke about stopping a runaway train while someone is yawning but the character doesn't get written that way during actual combat. Superman's just the worst of them because that trope gets used in other ways.
As a character he's still a favorite of mine, but writers regularly fail to realize that Clark Kent is the interesting part of his character. Of powers he doesn't have, the lack of mental domination is probably the most important (mind wiping kisses aside). His interesting struggles are all at a personal level and his best stories almost always revolve around mundane characters that challenge him on levels his powers don't really help with.
LunarSol wrote:Carol has generally always been a pretty heavy hitter. I mean, arguably her most mainstream use is sadly when Rogue absorbed her and acted as something of the X-Men's Superman. Not really Superman powerful, but still a powerhouse. Carol herself has gone through a number of cosmic power boosts over the years as she's returned to the spotlight; notably having the power of a star in her Binary form.
I think Marvel is finding her well suited for the role as their Superman as time goes on and has essentially been testing the waters to figure out the best way to make it happen. They've been building her up as a character for years now; at least since Bendis was writing Avengers. In terms of power, I don't think Marvel really wants or need a real Superman powered character. As a cosmic level character that works as an Avenger, I think they've got her about right.
The MCU looks like they're getting one, and the Marvel comic book setting has plenty but doesn't use them like DC does, and probably doesn't want to either.
That's probably the answer - they don't have one straight up because they don't want one, bet there are plenty of characters around in there that are just like him.
Lance845 wrote:Quasar and adam warlock are both good candidates for marvels "superman" in terms of sheer power. In fact they probably outclass him.
Good point!
Although the MCU has already hinted at their Adam Warlock, and Quasar's nowhere to be found.
Quasar and Adam Warlock have rather confusing origins and stories though, but then so does Carol, more or less.
It'll be interesting to see what version we get with Carol, whose origin looks to be told largely via flashbacks I think?
I'm very interested in the film, but TBH I have to agree with a criticism I've seen people making elsewhere; Brie Larson just looks kinda bored most of the time. Maybe there's some story reason for it I'm not familiar with the character, but you get what, one half-smile and one slight grimace in the trailer and otherwise just blank.
I was hoping to see the whole mess that Miss Marvel had to go through in the 70's (or was it the 80's) where she was kidnapped and impregnated and the rest of the Avengers team just laughed it off.
Also, I was really hoping for Rogue.
I really do not know much about Captain Marvel, apart from the cosmic upgrades that is.
Yodhrin wrote:I'm very interested in the film, but TBH I have to agree with a criticism I've seen people making elsewhere; Brie Larson just looks kinda bored most of the time. Maybe there's some story reason for it I'm not familiar with the character, but you get what, one half-smile and one slight grimace in the trailer and otherwise just blank.
Well it is just the first trailer, and to be honest, I didn't have that takeaway at all.
StygianBeach wrote:I was hoping to see the whole mess that Miss Marvel had to go through in the 70's (or was it the 80's) where she was kidnapped and impregnated and the rest of the Avengers team just laughed it off.
Also, I was really hoping for Rogue.
None of that had any chance of actually happening in this movie.
Yodhrin wrote: I'm very interested in the film, but TBH I have to agree with a criticism I've seen people making elsewhere; Brie Larson just looks kinda bored most of the time. Maybe there's some story reason for it I'm not familiar with the character, but you get what, one half-smile and one slight grimace in the trailer and otherwise just blank.
Went back and watched since sometimes you can see something you didn't see after someone mentions it and nope. Not the vibe I got. Outside of her having all of 1 actual "line" in the trailer where she seems fine most of the trailer seems to revolve around her stoic moments so I'm not surprised she looks like she's working up to fight in 80% of the trailer, cause those are the scenarios they gave us.
Yodhrin wrote: I'm very interested in the film, but TBH I have to agree with a criticism I've seen people making elsewhere; Brie Larson just looks kinda bored most of the time. Maybe there's some story reason for it I'm not familiar with the character, but you get what, one half-smile and one slight grimace in the trailer and otherwise just blank.
Went back and watched since sometimes you can see something you didn't see after someone mentions it and nope. Not the vibe I got. Outside of her having all of 1 actual "line" in the trailer where she seems fine most of the trailer seems to revolve around her stoic moments so I'm not surprised she looks like she's working up to fight in 80% of the trailer, cause those are the scenarios they gave us.
But that's been how she's looked in most of the promo shots and leaked set pics as well. Stoic is all well and good, but I hope there's more to her portrayal than that - Stark's default emotional mode was "smug", but there was more to the character and RDJ's performance, and even looking at similar characters Melissa Benoist's Supergirl managed more range in the promo materials for that show than I've seen from Larson so far.
Agree to disagree Yodhrin. I don't think the Supergirl character Benoist is playing is a comparable character to this Captain Marvel outside of range of powers. Additionally Brie Larson has a pretty extensive resume of comedy and drama with an action or two tossed in and in most of those she's been pretty dang good. So I'm willing to bet that someone at that level will be fine in the Marvel machine.
Hulksmash wrote: Agree to disagree Yodhrin. I don't think the Supergirl character Benoist is playing is a comparable character to this Captain Marvel outside of range of powers. Additionally Brie Larson has a pretty extensive resume of comedy and drama with an action or two tossed in and in most of those she's been pretty dang good. So I'm willing to bet that someone at that level will be fine in the Marvel machine.
Agree.
Keep in mind that Carol Danvers is first and foremost a soldier. Stoic is how she do.
On top of that, this trailer makes it look like she was abducted by the kree, augmented to have her powers, and then mind wiped and turned into a weapon for the Kree/Skrull War. If all that is true then each of these situations we are seeing in the trailer is her ready to be fighting the next fight in a war that is potentially all she has ever known.
Marvel doesn't really have a Superman, because it's not in their nature to have an all-powerful superhero, and certainly not on Earth. Where DC is about superlatives (e.g. "fastest", "greatest") hiding behind paper-thin disguises, Marvel has this notion of more limited superheroes who are also flawed, making them relatable. It's literally the difference between Spiderman, who is a poor (but brilliant) teenager barely scraping by selling pictures to his jerk boss, and Superman being the best of the best of the best.
That said, the closest mainstream Marvel equivalent would be the Silver Surfer, a cosmic-level superhero who travels dramatically faster than light, wielding the power cosmic. He starts as an antagonist to the Fantastic Four, hence his extreme power level, before he turns to the good guys.
The direct Marvel equivalent would be Hyperion of the Squadron Supreme, who was absolutely NOT modeled after Superman and the Justice League. Not in the slightest. Nope.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance845 wrote: Keep in mind that Carol Danvers is first and foremost a soldier. Stoic is how she do.
Not nearly as much as the literally star-spangled sheildbearer, and we've seen how difficult he is to write for as a solo character, which is precisely why we're seeing CM within a team context and getting an origin story.
BTW, is it just me, or is this explicitly and deliberately Feminist-friendly in the same vein as the Wonder Woman movie? It's not a bad thing. Even mind-wiped, she's a far better face of Marvel women than the castrated and murderous Black Widow.
[ETA - it is, which is fine; I hope it pulls enough of the 52% to cover for any who are upset that it's not another white male lead]
See, Cap IS a soldier but I wouldn't say cap is first and foremost a soldier. He doesn't follow orders particularly well. He doesn't do the dirty work for the greater good. I think cap first and foremost is an idealist who just so happens to have the power to fight from the front for those ideals.
Carol Danvers on the other hand is going to do the mission. You give her an objective and set some parameters and she will get the job done. She has her moral scruples but I think when push comes to shove the mission comes first.
For Cap, the mission never comes before doing whats right.
"No. But it should. We don't trade lives."
Carol Danvers might have felt bad about it. But she would have agreed that killing vision was the most direct tactical action to complete the objective.
I liked it, but my expectations were high and it was a little underwhelming. I feel teased, which I guess was the purpose. Hopefully, the next trailer will really nail it.
I now realize that I need about twelve movies with Jude Law as Mar-Vell and that will not happen. Even money on him dying heroically to save Carol, so she names her superhero identity after him.
I now realize that I need about twelve movies with Jude Law as Mar-Vell and that will not happen. Even money on him dying heroically to save Carol, so she names her superhero identity after him.
I've got a feeling that Jude's Mar-Vell will initially be a 'good guy' but will end up as the Big Bad by the end.
Then possibly to be revealed as a Skrull at the end, so it wasn't really him, so that way she can still name herself after him?
Too bad the FF isn't here yet, because the Super Skrull is one hell of a bad ass!
Super Skrull is such a weird character. In the context of his creation and generally all his encounters with the Fantasic Four, he just comes across as a gimmick. I honestly can't think of a story involving the F4 of his that I like. When he's a character as a part of the greater Marvel cosmic universe, he's pretty layered and interesting.
People are going to label me a hater, but I'm not feeling the 'wows' over that trailer. The broader storyline seems awfully reminiscent of the first Thor film. *shrug*
Is it 100% confirmed that Law is playing Mar-Vell? Because it seems like he's been a little evasive about that in interviews. And if he can't confirm the character he's playing, that suggests he's playing a known villain and they don't want comics fans figuring out the plot.
KTG17 wrote: Why is this film set in the 1980s or whenever it is? Anyone know?
It's set in the 90's, possibly so that they can introduce a new, super-powerful super-heroine and then explain where she's been all these years (and why she wasn't able to help stop Thanos) and so that she can then arrive to save the day vs. Thanos.
Maybe?
Plus, setting this in the 90's allows all sorts of interesting world building opportunities for the MCU, as well as giving us a lot of time with younger versions of key characters in Shield.
LunarSol wrote: Maybe they want to introduce a hero who was lost to time and is forced to cope with the changes in society upon waking in the modern day?
Captain America Marvel - I hero lost in time.
And yeah, the repressed memory/selective amnesia thing... oh well!
I dug the trailer, but I'm a hopeless Marvel fanatic at this point. As someone born in the late 80s I do hope that the movie really channels that 90s vibe and includes some iconic tunes of that era.
Easy E wrote: .......Oh it is actually convoluted and confusing!
Yeah. They're going to need to take that backstory and just.... trim about 35 years out of the middle of it. I read tons of comics with her in it, back when she first became Binary, and it was a confusing mess. And then it got worse.
In Infinity War you can see Cull Obsidian wearing what looks like the scarf/belt/whatever of Captain Marvel as a trophy but since this version is still around odds are this is the original from Captain Mar-Vel. It could just be an Easter Egg with no connection but that doesn't seem likely. I imagine this filme is going to tell the story of how the Black Order (Thanos' little crew) got it as well as establish the history between Marvel and Thanos as a cosmic villian.
LunarSol wrote: Super Skrull is such a weird character. In the context of his creation and generally all his encounters with the Fantasic Four, he just comes across as a gimmick. I honestly can't think of a story involving the F4 of his that I like. When he's a character as a part of the greater Marvel cosmic universe, he's pretty layered and interesting.
That's because the FF make everything bad and boring by contagion. (Not just the films. Also the original comics. Everything)
Ouze wrote:Yeah. They're going to need to take that backstory and just.... trim about 35 years out of the middle of it. I read tons of comics with her in it, back when she first became Binary, and it was a confusing mess. And then it got worse.
Honestly, yes. 'This is only Marvel we're going to deal with in the MCU. No, shut up.' seems the best approach to me. Kidnapped, empowered, fought. Done, move on with plot.
The film does not need to get bogged down in elaborate comicbook-dom or lengthy angst and fridge horror.
The Binary plot would need a dramatic new take or... roughly... six X-men films to set up.
creeping-deth87 wrote:I dug the trailer, but I'm a hopeless Marvel fanatic at this point. As someone born in the late 80s I do hope that the movie really channels that 90s vibe and includes some iconic tunes of that era.
Not going to lie, I really don't want another cringey musical-misappropriation soundtrack. 2 GotG films is more than enough.
LunarSol wrote: Super Skrull is such a weird character. In the context of his creation and generally all his encounters with the Fantasic Four, he just comes across as a gimmick. I honestly can't think of a story involving the F4 of his that I like. When he's a character as a part of the greater Marvel cosmic universe, he's pretty layered and interesting.
That's because the FF make everything bad and boring by contagion. (Not just the films. Also the original comics. Everything)
Ouze wrote:Yeah. They're going to need to take that backstory and just.... trim about 35 years out of the middle of it. I read tons of comics with her in it, back when she first became Binary, and it was a confusing mess. And then it got worse.
Honestly, yes. 'This is only Marvel we're going to deal with in the MCU. No, shut up.' seems the best approach to me. Kidnapped, empowered, fought. Done, move on with plot.
The film does not need to get bogged down in elaborate comicbook-dom or lengthy angst and fridge horror.
It won't, and there really was a 0% chance of that ever actually happening.
Super-Skrull is a good idea, but he's generally only within the FF context, which makes things wierd simply due to the nature of the FF being a deeply dysfunctional team with a jerk of a leader and ridiculousness from their very inception. It's a real pity that it's where Galactus and the Silver Surfer are homed.
Anyhow.... Super-Skrull will likely be an Ultron-level threat, and that'll be just fine for the CM movie, given that she'll be part of an Avengers-level Kree team. I think it'll be great!
LunarSol wrote: Maybe they want to introduce a hero who was lost to time and is forced to cope with the changes in society upon waking in the modern day?
Sure, that and someone who's exiled from her people, who live in a wondrous faraway place with technology we can only dream of. I also think there's a chance that someone close to her from that place is a scheming traitor.
It'd be an interesting twist if she was a cocky jerk as a fighter pilot, and later learned humility after she gained her powers.
FF are kind of like Superman. They're the template for so many things that trying to do them the way they were initially just comes across as cliche. They were better as more matured concepts, with Reed and Sue married with kids on bizarre high concept sci-fi adventures. Trying to make them teenagers fighting crime with their superpowers is turf the X-Men claimed long ago.
gorgon wrote: It'd be an interesting twist if she was a cocky jerk as a fighter pilot, and later learned humility after she gained her powers.
Unlike Tony, or Thor, or Rocket, or Peter, or Stephen, or....
Jerk who takes a level in kindness is kind of the default Marvel hero archetype.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunarSol wrote: FF are kind of like Superman. They're the template for so many things that trying to do them the way they were initially just comes across as cliche. They were better as more matured concepts, with Reed and Sue married with kids on bizarre high concept sci-fi adventures. Trying to make them teenagers fighting crime with their superpowers is turf the X-Men claimed long ago.
The FF are a poorly-executed expy of the Incredibles.
Plot twist: There is no "Carol". She is a Skull changed into human form and brainwashed with fake memories of Earth. She is the Kree's secret weapon (somehow... ?) against the Skrulls.
Also they don't have the rights to Super Skrull. "But they do now!". No, they don't. Not yet anyway. And this film is been... well... filmed. The main bad guy is the Skrull Talos, but I'm betting on Jude Law also being a bad guy.
In Infinity War you can see Cull Obsidian wearing what looks like the scarf/belt/whatever of Captain Marvel as a trophy but since this version is still around odds are this is the original from Captain Mar-Vel. It could just be an Easter Egg with no connection but that doesn't seem likely. I imagine this filme is going to tell the story of how the Black Order (Thanos' little crew) got it as well as establish the history between Marvel and Thanos as a cosmic villian.
Confirmed trick of the light. Nothing to do with Captain Marvel.
Looks passable, although getting strange Green Lantern flashbacks
Spidey is the Marvel Superman, strong moral code from adoptive parents, his science geekness labels him as an outsider, the majority of his problems relate to being Peter, or least trying to balance the two, and prior to the MCU one of maybe two or three Marvel characters know outside comic/geek culture (X-men, and maybe Hulk being the others)
Ouze wrote:Yeah. They're going to need to take that backstory and just.... trim about 35 years out of the middle of it. I read tons of comics with her in it, back when she first became Binary, and it was a confusing mess. And then it got worse.
Honestly, yes. 'This is only Marvel we're going to deal with in the MCU. No, shut up.' seems the best approach to me. Kidnapped, empowered, fought. Done, move on with plot.
The film does not need to get bogged down in elaborate comicbook-dom or lengthy angst and fridge horror.
It won't, and there really was a 0% chance of that ever actually happening.
I'm actually curious if you really believe that or if you're just snark posting because you're offended at my opinion of the FF.
Either way, I'd like to see some reasoning- the MCU so far hasn't at all been shy about just skipping quite a lot of the nonsense buried in 50+ years of comics 'canon' and retcons.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Plot twist: There is no "Carol". She is a Skull changed into human form and brainwashed with fake memories of Earth. She is the Kree's secret weapon (somehow... ?) against the Skrulls.
That wandered through my mind (particularly when she was in the restraints), but seems too cliche.
Ouze wrote:Yeah. They're going to need to take that backstory and just.... trim about 35 years out of the middle of it. I read tons of comics with her in it, back when she first became Binary, and it was a confusing mess. And then it got worse.
Honestly, yes. 'This is only Marvel we're going to deal with in the MCU. No, shut up.' seems the best approach to me. Kidnapped, empowered, fought. Done, move on with plot.
The film does not need to get bogged down in elaborate comicbook-dom or lengthy angst and fridge horror.
It won't, and there really was a 0% chance of that ever actually happening.
I'm actually curious if you really believe that or if you're just snark posting because you're offended at my opinion of the FF.
Either way, I'd like to see some reasoning- the MCU so far hasn't at all been shy about just skipping quite a lot of the nonsense buried in 50+ years of comics 'canon' and retcons.
I think you're confused?
And by that, I mean beyond your ridiculous Hot Take on the FF (which was so off base that it's almost impossible to get offended by what appears to be a largely uninformed opinion).
Though possibly I wasn't clear enough?
I was actually agreeing with you by saying that there was a 0% chance of the Captain Marvel movie getting overly bogged down with her rather ridiculously convoluted comic book history.
Anyway, now that the MCU does have access to all of the X-Men and FF properties, there are a lot of cosmic level threats for just about anyone and everyone to face.
adamsouza wrote: Least favorite parts of the trailer:
Brie Larson with the same facial expression in every scene.
It's like what's her face from the Twilight movies that played Bella with the same mildly annoyed/confused expresssion 90% of the time.
Friends labeled it: "smelling the fart".
But yeah, she looks constipated
Beavis and Butthead had the best description of Kristen Stewart in Twilight: "Is Bella a zombie? Because all she does is, like, stand around with her mouth hanging open."
JohnHwangDD wrote: Guys, as I noted above, this trailer was specifically created for the other 52%, not for you.
I know it's inevitable that any superhero movie with a non-white-guy protagonist will become a battlefield in the culture war, but let's not bait out the stupid arguments before we need to, yeah?
Beavis and Butthead had the best description of Kristen Stewart in Twilight: "Is Bella a zombie? Because all she does is, like, stand around with her mouth hanging open."
Or in the Rifftrax:
Edward: "Are you afraid?"
Comentators: "Seriously, I can't tell what expression you're going for. You just look nauseated."
JohnHwangDD wrote: Guys, as I noted above, this trailer was specifically created for the other 52%, not for you.
I know it's inevitable that any superhero movie with a non-white-guy protagonist will become a battlefield in the culture war, but let's not bait out the stupid arguments before we need to, yeah?"
REMOVED BY BROOKM The film is being marketed with the overtly feminist "The Future is Female" tag:
There are obvious feminist references within the trailer. If you are too unaware to see them, that's on you, but they absolutely are there.
I find it unlikely that mahr vell will be a bad guy.
I think its more likely that skrulls will kill him, but also plant seeds of doubt in carol danvers head about how she was brain washed.
It will turn out that its shades of gray with the kree being ass holes but so are the skrulls so feth them both and go to earth. Oh wait... Skrulls are there. Kill skrulls.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The next spiderman is the first phase 4 movie. Captain marvel is the movie before avengers 4 which is the last in phase 3. The buzz around this movie is extremely positive. I really dont understand how your seeing otherwise.
I literaly know no one who is excited about Captain Marvel, other than the people payed to be so.
Captain Marvel is like Han Solo/Ghostbusters movie of the Marvel Universe. No one really asked for it, and it could be okay, but they are going burn bridges with a huge portion of the fan base by denouncing any critics of it as sexist, racist, bigoted, etc..
Ouze wrote: Aw yeah, we got there by the second page.
And with a personal attack on me, to boot. But it's handy when people signal so early on in a potential debate that they're not worth the keystrokes. Reported, blocked, forgotten.
Captain Marvel is like Han Solo/Ghostbusters movie of the Marvel Universe. No one really asked for it, and it could be okay, but they are going burn bridges with a huge portion of the fan base by denouncing any critics of it as sexist, racist, bigoted, etc..
Again, even if that it happening, it certainly doesn't appear to be happening where a lot of people seem to be seeing it or commenting on it.
This is Spar...errr the Intertubes, remember the middle ground along with having no opinion either way was outlawed following the 'Anger gets clicks done' accord of 2009
Excited to see it because it is a Marvel movie, or excited because they are a Captain Marvel fan ?
I'm going to watch it because I watch all the Marvel movies and TV series.
The modern Captain Marvel is most famous for being Ms Marvel, who lost her powers to Rogue, of the X-Men. Marvel comics tried and failed to make her a replacement for Captain America, and her movie is being made mostly because of the Avengers cast aging out of their roles and wanting out.
The movie is being made on a modest budget.
The advertising for the movie has been modest.
The preview did not "break the internet". If you don't understand that reference and how it relates to this movie, then trust me that I have better grasp of the situation.
Go on youtube. There are hundreds of videos about the Captain Marvel movie, people want it to do well but no one has high expectations.
The preview did not "break the internet". If you don't understand that reference and how it relates to this movie, then trust me that I have better grasp of the situation.
Things are becoming clearer...
And...did someone in this thread claim the trailer 'broke the Internet'?
Are you getting confused about what you've said to whom, and where you said it?
Larson was on hand to accept the Crystal Award for Excellence in Film Wednesday night at the Beverly Hilton when she dedicated her speech discussing the recent “Critic’s Choice” study, published by USC Annenberg on Monday. Citing the study, Larson said, “Of the 100 highest-grossing movies in 2017, less than a quarter of the critics were white women, less than ten percent were underrepresented men, and only 2.5 percent were women of color.”
Larson emphasized the issue this presents for today’s industry, given that “reviews change lives” and impact the films that are considered for awards season. She also reiterated the importance in having an industry that truly reflects the communities we live in.
“Am I saying I hate white dudes?” the Oscar-winning actress asked repeatedly throughout her speech. “No, I’m not,” she answered.
“I don’t want to hear what a white man has to say about ‘A Wrinkle in Time.’ I want to hear what a woman of color, a biracial woman has to say about the film. I want to hear what teenagers think about the film.”
“If you make a movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is a chance that a woman of color does not have access to review and critique your film,” she said, while revealing plans to roll out an opt-in program that will provide studios with access to underrepresented journalists and critics. “Do not say the talent is not there, because it is.”
So, a little different than "Brie Larson doesn't care what white men think about movies," yes?
Change the script. Imagine something you are passionate about, that represents part of your identity that isn't represented elsewhere in mainstream media/culture, and then someone outside of that group gets the opportunity to judge the merits of your special thing. It would be annoying wouldn't it? Now, if those critiques also impacted how well that special thing you liked did financially, and influenced how many more of those special things would get made in the future, wouldn't you want at least some people judging that special thing that were part of the group it was intended for?
That seems to be Larson's argument. Broaden the critics judging and writing about movies because movies aren't only made for white, male audiences.
And I am excited about Captain Marvel. I agree that Larson's stone-face throughout the trailer is reminiscent of Kristen Stewart but from other movies I've seen her in (Train Wreck, Scott Pilgrim) she was emotive and natural on screen, so I am going to give the film and her the benefit of the doubt that she isn't wearing that expression through the whole movie. Or maybe she is and it is a plot point, who knows?
adamsouza wrote: I literaly know no one who is excited about Captain Marvel, other than the people payed to be so.
Captain Marvel is like Han Solo/Ghostbusters movie of the Marvel Universe. No one really asked for it, and it could be okay, but they are going burn bridges with a huge portion of the fan base by denouncing any critics of it as sexist, racist, bigoted, etc..
Well disney did that with Last Jedi as did some paid critics.......
Trailer looks ok - didn't grab me like a normal marvel trailer - maybe the next one will.
Don;t really now anything about her apart form the odd appearance in X Men comics - vaguely recall that she was another lady who fell for Logans charms IIRc and lost her powers to Rogue?
I thought the point was she had the same expression through different periods of life?
Wonder if we will have any other cameos - wouldn;t Agent Carter be about as well?
adamsouza wrote: I literaly know no one who is excited about Captain Marvel, other than the people payed to be so.
Captain Marvel is like Han Solo/Ghostbusters movie of the Marvel Universe. No one really asked for it, and it could be okay, but they are going burn bridges with a huge portion of the fan base by denouncing any critics of it as sexist, racist, bigoted, etc..
I’m excited for it.
Yet I’m broke until payday.
Explain that one, clever trousers. And given it’s the usual ‘mughhhhhhhhh disagree YOU BEEN BRIBED’ argument is popping up again? Evidence to support your assertion please.
Mr Morden wrote: Don;t really now anything about her apart form the odd appearance in X Men comics - vaguely recall that she was another lady who fell for Logans charms IIRc and lost her powers to Rogue?
Yeah, that was her, back when she was Ms. Marvel, and it's why Rogue can fly, is super strong, etc etc.
You know, now that the MCU and the X-men are going to be a thing again... It could happen!
I only really got to know her around dark reign/heroic age time. Like most comic characters her history is really dumb.
Shes a good character that has been used really well in recent years.
Side note: in the comics jessica jones best friend that played the Trish Walker role in the Alias comics was Carol Danvers.
Captain Marvel was replaced with trish in the nextflix show. Trish of course has a semi complicated publication history but is currently a super hero named HellCat. We might see that start in JJ s3.
In all honesty, I'm excited for this because it's a Marvel movie. I, too, only knew Ms Marvel from Rogue's footnotes. And other than the grannypunch, this trailer doesn't do much more than establish "here comes a Marvel movie". For me, it's enough.
And I get the reference to Brie Larson thinking her Captain Marvel picture would break the Internet. Maybe she thought they were going with the pic she took next to Kim Kardashian's derrière? Either way, her miscalculation was commented on by Screen Junkies and others, so she's hopefully learned to tone it down a bit.
I don't think there's much merit in the criticism that CM isn't a beloved main character. After Guardians and Ant-Man, everyone I know trusts Marvel; everyone expects to like the character due to past experiences. I don't find the "women power" elements to be anywhere near as pervasive or irritating as other posters--it just reminds me a bit of the Wonder Woman hype, which seems to be working for CM rather than against CM. After the record-breaking success of Black Panther, Marvel would have to be stupid not to play up the representation angle at least a little. I don't think it's wrong or offensive for them to do this.
The preview did not "break the internet". If you don't understand that reference and how it relates to this movie, then trust me that I have a better grasp of the situation.
Things are becoming clearer... And...did someone in this thread claim the trailer 'broke the Internet'?
Things are indeed getting clearer... You are not as up to date on your pop culture and Captain Marvel references as I am.
Brie Larson's twitter feed made a feeble attempt to "break the internet", her words, not mine, with a lame preview of The Captain Marvel movie.
Dude, you want to get pumped and White Knight for this movie go ahead, but there is no way you can convince me this movie has the general populace or critics expectations high.
Captain Marvel is on track to be the lowest grossing Marvel movie to date.
Obscure Character that most people don't know? Check!
Character underperforming in comic sales? Check!
Character reboot divisive amongst comic fans? Check!
Movie's star actress pushing identity politics? Check!
China, a huge share of the movie market, not a fan of identity politics? Check!
Movie's star with the same "fart face" in every promotional material? Check!
Explain that one, clever trousers. And given it’s the usual ‘mughhhhhhhhh disagree YOU BEEN BRIBED’ argument is popping up again? Evidence to support your assertion please.
Nothing in my statement is incorrect. I never said the only people who support the movie have been bribed. The only people I've seen supportive about it are people in the entertainment industry trying to hype the movie.
Rando's on DakkaDakka, who may or may not be trolling, don't really factor into my equation
To those who disagree with me. Why do you think Captain Marvel will be great?
1) Marvel movies have only gotten more competently made with better variety and tone in the last 3ish years.
2) Marvel made everyone give a gak about a racoon that walks like a man and a talking tree.
3) comic sales dont impact movie sales. The movie crowd for marvel movies dont actually give a gak about the comics at all.
4) the % of the movie going population who is paying attention to twitter feeds and gender politics articles is small and insignificant. Most people just go to the movies to watch whatevers on. And at this point people count on marvel for quality.
I think your saying some real dumb gak when you assume this is on track to be the worst.
Why are you pushing this false narrative that Larson is trying to play identity politics? You flat out lied in your last post about this and misrepresented her statement (destroying all of your argument's credibility in the process). Just stop. Focus on her "fart face" if you like, but don't just make gak up.
The preview did not "break the internet". If you don't understand that reference and how it relates to this movie, then trust me that I have a better grasp of the situation.
Things are becoming clearer... And...did someone in this thread claim the trailer 'broke the Internet'?
Things are indeed getting clearer... You are not as up to date on your pop culture and Captain Marvel references as I am.
Brie Larson's twitter feed made a feeble attempt to "break the internet", her words, not mine, with a lame preview of The Captain Marvel movie.
Dude, you want to get pumped and White Knight for this movie go ahead, but there is no way you can convince me this movie has the general populace or critics expectations high.
Captain Marvel is on track to be the lowest grossing Marvel movie to date.
Obscure Character that most people don't know? Check!
Character underperforming in comic sales? Check!
Character reboot divisive amongst comic fans? Check!
Movie's star actress pushing identity politics? Check!
China, a huge share of the movie market, not a fan of identity politics? Check!
Movie's star with the same "fart face" in every promotional material? Check!
Explain that one, clever trousers. And given it’s the usual ‘mughhhhhhhhh disagree YOU BEEN BRIBED’ argument is popping up again? Evidence to support your assertion please.
Nothing in my statement is incorrect. I never said the only people who support the movie have been bribed. The only people I've seen supportive about it are people in the entertainment industry trying to hype the movie.
Rando's on DakkaDakka, who may or may not be trolling, don't really factor into my equation
To those who disagree with me. Why do you think Captain Marvel will be great?
So many logical fallacies there.
You're 100% making stuff up and attributing stuff to me I never said - it's odd and amusing too.
I tell you what - let's meet up at the AMC and Dartmouth when the movie opens up - I'll bet you'll even enjoy it, if you can get over whatever it is about Captain Marvel that rubs you the wrong way.
(Good thing Shazam is Shazam now too, and not...Captain Marvel, right?)
I personally dont think it's going to be "GREAT" but I do think it's going to be good. It's got he right elements, the visuals and soundtrack seem good, it's got Jackson and young Coulson. It's an introduction of the first full length female led marvel film. Basically it has a ton going for it.
Wonder Woman performed amazingly for a meh movie with a crappy (in my opinion) actress. Brie Larson in comparison has an excellent recent track record beyond fast and furious movies. The movie is going to be fine.
I do love how you think this has low support for advertising 6 months before it comes out....and if wonder woman can do fine I China this will be fine too. Stop getting so worked up about "identity" and "gender" politics. We dont have this argument every time a white hero movie comes out.
I was an avid comic book kid, but I gotta say this trailer did nothing for me. I think I'm simply burned out on super hero stuff. This trailers shows me absolutely nothing interesting to convince me to go watch it. Just more super punchy heroes with a gak ton of CGI.
Regardless of what some say about movies like Captain America and the first Thor, most of the last decade worth of Marvel movies leads me to believe Captain Marvel will be a perfectly good movie.
I just think people who enjoy such things are really chomping at the bit to see Marvel stumble, and they simply....don't, so those people just get more and more wound up.
I mean, come on. Black Panther rolled out some REALLY formulaic "hero's journey" tropes, and is STILL a great movie.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Confirmed trick of the light. Nothing to do with Captain Marvel.
Wouldn't surprise me. Some friends were going on about it when the Infinity War Bluray came out and seemed worth sharing given the context of the thread. I'm sure I'll see it as I have a few friends very excited to see it though I am somewhat indifferent. I imagine it will be entertaining enough to warrant a watch so I'm not to worried.
adamsouza wrote:Excited to see it because it is a Marvel movie, or excited because they are a Captain Marvel fan ?
I'm going to watch it because I watch all the Marvel movies and TV series.
The modern Captain Marvel is most famous for being Ms Marvel, who lost her powers to Rogue, of the X-Men. Marvel comics tried and failed to make her a replacement for Captain America, and her movie is being made mostly because of the Avengers cast aging out of their roles and wanting out.
The movie is being made on a modest budget.
The advertising for the movie has been modest.
The preview did not "break the internet". If you don't understand that reference and how it relates to this movie, then trust me that I have better grasp of the situation.
Go on youtube. There are hundreds of videos about the Captain Marvel movie, people want it to do well but no one has high expectations.
I've been a fan of Carol Danvers as long as I've been reading comics, so since about 1979 roundabouts.
While I would have preferred someone else play the character, I was also skeptical of some of the OTHER actors selected for comic roles, so I'll stay optimistic.
And that's just ME.
If you look throughout the history of hero cartoons and video games, Ms. Marvel was constantly on the request list for characters to be brought in. She's also been able to hold solo titles where other characters haven't been able to. Characters SUPPOSEDLY more popular.
You can project as much as you want, but YOU disliking Carol Danvers does NOT equal everyone disliking Carol Danvers.
Change the script. Imagine something you are passionate about, that represents part of your identity that isn't represented elsewhere in mainstream media/culture, and then someone outside of that group gets the opportunity to judge the merits of your special thing. It would be annoying wouldn't it?
The rest aside - this is where a lot of folk take issue with what she said, because no it shouldn't be annoying, not to a reasonable person. And the assertion that it is or should be, that someone's opinion of art has value only insofar as they are personally part of some in-group directly related to that art, is a genuinely dangerous notion as far as I'm concerned.
"Women and minorities aren't adequately represented in the field of film critique." is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable statement.
"How qualified you are to critique something depends on whether you're part of the group the subject of your critique depicts." is a grotesque sentiment, and moreover unless you're willing to be a massive, rampant hypocrite also torpedoes vast swathes of feminist and race-based critiques of mainstream cinema, since by that ridiculous measure a black woman should have nothing to say about a film made for and starring white men.
Lance845 wrote: 1) Marvel movies have only gotten more competently made with better variety and tone in the last 3ish years.
2) Marvel made everyone give a gak about a racoon that walks like a man and a talking tree.
3) comic sales dont impact movie sales. The movie crowd for marvel movies dont actually give a gak about the comics at all.
4) the % of the movie going population who is paying attention to twitter feeds and gender politics articles is small and insignificant. Most people just go to the movies to watch whatevers on. And at this point people count on marvel for quality.
I think your saying some real dumb gak when you assume this is on track to be the worst.
Agreed (well except I found the Racoon annoying)
It will be another good Marvel film - they have not made a bad one since Cap A 1 IMO.
Lastly - low grossing does not equal bad film, same as high gross does not equal good - truly awful crap like Last Jedi made money
Age of Ultron left a bad taste with the audience with respect to Black Widow. If that was the kind of story that would be told about her, I don't need to see it.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Age of Ultron left a bad taste with the audience with respect to Black Widow. If that was the kind of story that would be told about her, I don't need to see it.
adamsouza wrote: Captain Marvel being the first Wave 4 movie, but made on a smaller budget than Ant-Man.
No Captain Marvel trailer or panel at SDCC.
Whilst Brie Larson's twitter persona is... counterproductive, I'd dispute these two:
1. Spider-Man: Far From Home is the first Phase 4 movie.
2. There was no Marvel Studios at SDCC. Period. Marvel's keeping everything a secret because they don't want to give away anything for Avengers 4.
Just Tony wrote: Because Black Widow sucks? Because the character is hard pressed to carry an entire movie?
Does she - why?
I thought she has been a great character in all the movies - interesting relationship with Hawkweye and family as well as that with Bruce.
Sexy female assassins with problems usually do quite well to get bums on seats
So long as they only murderise the right wrong people, which they hint at isn't the case at all from Winter Soldier onwards
Not really - they almost always start of as being pawns of evil organisations that are reformed - so the same as BW. See Nikita, Colombiana, Kill Bill.
Killing Eve on BBC1 at the moment is awesome. Sexy female killers sell.
I thought her back story was trained, quasi brainwashed and mutilated by the KGB as an assassin - did lots of terrible things - and left it to be Agent of Shield. Nothing new in Ultron - in first Avengers film she is clear she has "red in her ledger"
adamsouza wrote: I literaly know no one who is excited about Captain Marvel, other than the people payed to be so.
Most people don't know who Captain Marvel is. And how many people were jumping up and down for an Ant-Man movie? Guardians? Dr. Strange? Thor? Iron Man FFS!?!
Marvel has been using 2nd and 3rd tier characters in their movies because that's all they had. It's a testament to their plan and their collective talent that they have taken characters that people either new nothing about (Guardians, Dr. Strange, BP) or characters that were in the popular consciousness but only because of longevity or previous incarnations (Hulk, Captain America) and turned them into household names.
No one is exceited for Captain Marvel? Of course they aren't. That's what this trailer is meant to do.
adamsouza wrote: Captain Marvel is like Han Solo/Ghostbusters movie of the Marvel Universe. No one really asked for it, and it could be okay, but they are going burn bridges with a huge portion of the fan base by denouncing any critics of it as sexist, racist, bigoted, etc..
There are two points here:
1. "Nobody asked for it" is a daft comment to make. When Marvel announced Phase 3 it's not like at the end of it people went "Oh wow, this looks great... but who asked for a Captain Marvel movie?". Saying it's like Solo is daft. 2. You are right in that anyone who dares criticise the film will have the "sexist racist hyper-nazi" label thrown at them, but that doesn't make the film bad or making the film bad. It's nothing like the Ghostbusters remake, which was a tired attempt at pandering to a demographic that didn't exist in large enough numbers to justify its existence.
adamsouza wrote: Captain Marvel is on track to be the lowest grossing Marvel movie to date.
And you can provide tracking numbers this early, can you? You'd be the first!
adamsouza wrote: Obscure Character that most people don't know? Check!
You could say that about every single 'first' Marvel movie so far with the exception of Hulk, Captain America and Spider-Man.
Nobody knew who the feth Iron Man, Thor, Ant-Man, Dr. Strange of the Guardians of the Galaxy were. Hell, one of the biggest reoccurring jokes when it came to Marvel/DC was that DC was having trouble getting one of the most well known characters off the ground (Wonder Woman) whilst Marvel had just made mega-hit out of a talking racoon and a walking tree!
Obscurity is no barrier to entry when it comes to Marvel now.
adamsouza wrote: Character underperforming in comic sales? Check!
This doesn't matter in the slightest. Comic readership, whilst certainly not flagging, isn't very high to begin with. And the overwhelming majority of people watching these movies have never picked up a comic in their life. This couldn't be more irrelevant if you tried.
adamsouza wrote: Character reboot divisive amongst comic fans? Check!
Nobody cares, at least nobody who matters. The comic book fans who have problem with Carol being turned into a jackbooted thug means nothing to most people who are going to see this film, the majority of which didn't even know who Captain Marvel was until the trailer hit.
adamsouza wrote: Movie's star actress pushing identity politics? Check!
Brie Larson being insufferable online won't matter in the long run.
adamsouza wrote: China, a huge share of the movie market, not a fan of identity politics? Check!
Won't matter at all because it's a big Marvel movie and they seem to love those. And do you really think what some girl says on Twitter is going to matter to the billion-strong movie-going audience in China.
The only way Brie is going to disrupt the China box office is if she starts spamming #FreeTibet every day between now and when China blocks her.
adamsouza wrote: Movie's star with the same "fart face" in every promotional material? Check!
Not going to lie, this could be an image problem, but a full trailer in 3 months time can easily overcome this.
Change the script. Imagine something you are passionate about, that represents part of your identity that isn't represented elsewhere in mainstream media/culture, and then someone outside of that group gets the opportunity to judge the merits of your special thing. It would be annoying wouldn't it?
The rest aside - this is where a lot of folk take issue with what she said, because no it shouldn't be annoying, not to a reasonable person. And the assertion that it is or should be, that someone's opinion of art has value only insofar as they are personally part of some in-group directly related to that art, is a genuinely dangerous notion as far as I'm concerned.
"Women and minorities aren't adequately represented in the field of film critique." is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable statement.
It isn't that someone's opinion of art only has value if the are part of the in-group, it is that the in-group often doesn't get a chance to take part in the discussion of their art. And when the success of that discussion determines how much more of that art is made, then yes, it should be annoying to reasonable people because the target demographic isn't getting a chance to critique art made for them. Remember, Larson was specifically talking about film criticism, and how that criticism influences the industry and how future films are made.
Yodhrin wrote: "How qualified you are to critique something depends on whether you're part of the group the subject of your critique depicts." is a grotesque sentiment, and moreover unless you're willing to be a massive, rampant hypocrite also torpedoes vast swathes of feminist and race-based critiques of mainstream cinema, since by that ridiculous measure a black woman should have nothing to say about a film made for and starring white men.
I don't disagree with your position (and have raged at people who argue writers can't write about characters outside of the writer's in-group), but is that a hypothetical quote you made up to represent that argument, or was that said by Larson or someone in this thread? I went through looking for who said exactly that and missed it.
But, taking that argument, you are right it is rubbish. However, I don't think that is what Larson is saying. Again, she was simply arguing for more diverse voices in film criticism because the lenses used by the majority of critics are not necessarily calibrated in the same way as the subjects of the films they are critiquing.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Age of Ultron left a bad taste with the audience with respect to Black Widow. If that was the kind of story that would be told about her, I don't need to see it.
Sorry which bit?
Where Marvel's first big female hero was a mopey, depressing, emotionally unstable woman who felt she was a monster because she was sterilized and raised to be a sociopath. Wheeeeee!
Since marvel's strength is riffing off existing genre tropes and adding super-heroics and morality stories to it..... guess what..... Black Widow fits perfectly into that concept.
Female Assassin stories with redemptive arcs practically write themselves in Hollywood and get green-lit all the time. This has been the case since..... at least the mid-70's and probably before.
I think the biggest stumbling block is how to make a Black Widow movie different from these existing and well-worn movie tropes. I see that as more of a stumbling block than any flaw in what we saw in Age of Ultron.
I think the biggest stumbling block is how to make a Black Widow movie different from these existing and well-worn movie tropes. I see that as more of a stumbling block than any flaw in what we saw in Age of Ultron.
If young Jackson works, they could certainly do her defection story. Part of the problem though is its not super necessary. The other thing is that her background mystery is part of the narrative appeal of the character. It also lets the character be darker when that stuff is left to our imagination than they'd likely be willing to go in a solo film. She's often defined by a willingness to cross lines that Marvel would probably rather not explicitly show. There's some value in a current timeline storyarc assuming she survives the next film, but even that almost invariably has to revolve around her past coming back to haunt her. To some degree, part of the problem is that she and the Winter Soldier share a lot of narrative space and it might be hard to carve out a niche.
Easy E wrote: I think the biggest stumbling block is how to make a Black Widow movie different from these existing and well-worn movie tropes.
Is that *really* an issue for Marvel, though? I'm not sure.
Personally, I wonder if part of the issue is simply that this cinematic universe is moving on to new characters. That doesn't explain why a BW film couldn't have happened BEFORE, mind you. But at this time, I'm not sure the character is part of 'the plan.' A downside of this thing that Marvel's built is there doesn't seem to be much room for one-offs that don't advance the overall storyline or expand the universe in a needed direction.
See, I'm actually glad to see WB/DC move away from shared universes and toward more one-off films like the Phoenix Joker project. WB is *never* going to do what Marvel does so well. No one else HAS been able to do it like Marvel. Look at the Sony "X" and Spidey franchises. They've been handled better than the DCEU, but were very uneven franchises with some real lows among the highs.
Doing a one-off that doesn't have much to do with anything, but has a take that's interesting, a script they really like, and a lot of good people involved...that's something WB is built to do well. Even if Marvel had those things in place for BW, I'm not sure they'd spend one of their MCU 'slots' on it, just because they have larger goals and are ready to move onto new blood.
EDIT: I think LunarSol's comment about overlap with Bucky also fits right in.
Just Tony wrote: Because Black Widow sucks? Because the character is hard pressed to carry an entire movie?
Does she - why?
My detestation of Natasha starts with the comics, since that's where I've learned to loathe the character. She has almost no depth, other characters pull off EVERY aspect of her character better, except they aren't coagulated into one giant scab like her, and she is so easily replaceable that it's laughable. Yelena Belova, anyone? And comics Natasha is a MASTERPIECE compared to MCU Natasha.
Mr Morden wrote: I thought she has been a great character in all the movies - interesting relationship with Hawkweye and family as well as that with Bruce.
Two aspects of her otherwise infallible and unlikeable character that, yet again, couldn't hold up a solo movie.
Mr Morden wrote: Sexy female assassins with problems usually do quite well to get bums on seats
There you go. It's like that Joss Whedon trope female character cranked up to Eleventy Ten, as my 5 year old would say. Not to mention that until Civil War, you really didn't see her do poorly at any fight, and then she's only outclassed by Scarlet Witch's powers.
I can't seriously get motivated to like ANY aspect of the character because the sum of her parts is so bad. Carol Danvers, on the other hand, is a much better character in the comics, and unless an Academy Award winning actress can't do the part justice, I have the feeling she'll be a much better rep on the screen.
I thought she was well protrayed as a character and action hero, certainly better than say Gamora who is underused and pretty awful in a fight, but then i thought the guardians films were some of the weaker MCU films - fun in places but very patchy.
Perosnally looking forward to Cap Marvel as i do all MCU movies.
First, it has to be an interesting story in and of itself.
Second, it has to push the story of the whole MCU forward in some respect.
IM 3? It's about tony getting over his PTSD from Avengers and moves his character forward.
Dr Strange? Introduces actual Magic to the MCU.
So lets look at black widow. Shes a spy and an assassin.
Okay. So she doesn't have much in the way of a background that hasn't already been explored in the MCU. The red room was explored on agent carter. She already told the story of what was done to her. Her background doesn't really matter. She doesn't really have interesting villains of her own and she doesn't have any major villains from her past to come after her. So we send her on a mission. Except we have seen that too. It was Captain American Winter Solider and mostly it involved her stealing data off a boat.
Yeah. We could get a real neat spy movie for black widow. But I can't think of how it could really drive the MCU forward.
Oh I got one... Like... 2 years from now she gets a movie with Hawkeye. Then end up needing to kill somebody. They do, and that person turns into a skrull. Set up secret invasion.
But that opportunity hasn't existed yet. It makes PERFECT sense why they haven't had their own movie. They haven't had anything worth driving the MCU forward with yet.
You are all missing the most important aspect of this film.
Kree vs Skrull. That is more important than anything else.
Inhumans
X-Men
Fantastic Four
Shi'ar
Phalanx
DeffDred wrote: You are all missing the most important aspect of this film.
Kree vs Skrull. That is more important than anything else.
Inhumans
X-Men
Fantastic Four
Shi'ar
Phalanx
H'ah, it is setting up Secret War related shenanigans. I'm not even a comics guy and even I have heard of that story line.
Easy E wrote: Since marvel's strength is riffing off existing genre tropes and adding super-heroics and morality stories to it..... guess what..... Black Widow fits perfectly into that concept.
Female Assassin stories with redemptive arcs practically write themselves in Hollywood and get green-lit all the time. This has been the case since..... at least the mid-70's and probably before.
I think the biggest stumbling block is how to make a Black Widow movie different from these existing and well-worn movie tropes. I see that as more of a stumbling block than any flaw in what we saw in Age of Ultron.
Easy E wrote: Since marvel's strength is riffing off existing genre tropes and adding super-heroics and morality stories to it..... guess what..... Black Widow fits perfectly into that concept.
Female Assassin stories with redemptive arcs practically write themselves in Hollywood and get green-lit all the time. This has been the case since..... at least the mid-70's and probably before.
I think the biggest stumbling block is how to make a Black Widow movie different from these existing and well-worn movie tropes. I see that as more of a stumbling block than any flaw in what we saw in Age of Ultron.
Problem is, did Red Sparrow already fill that niche?
Or, is it a story anyone want to see?
Probably best that Captain Marvel ends up as the MCU's first female lead.
I would have def watched that - female assassin's are fun - plus its not like male actors have not played that role hundreds of times - eg Jon Wick story has been done loads of times but still making them
First, it has to be an interesting story in and of itself.
Second, it has to push the story of the whole MCU forward in some respect.
IM 3? It's about tony getting over his PTSD from Avengers and moves his character forward.
Dr Strange? Introduces actual Magic to the MCU.
So lets look at black widow. Shes a spy and an assassin.
Okay. So she doesn't have much in the way of a background that hasn't already been explored in the MCU. The red room was explored on agent carter. She already told the story of what was done to her. Her background doesn't really matter. She doesn't really have interesting villains of her own and she doesn't have any major villains from her past to come after her. So we send her on a mission. Except we have seen that too. It was Captain American Winter Solider and mostly it involved her stealing data off a boat.
Yeah. We could get a real neat spy movie for black widow. But I can't think of how it could really drive the MCU forward.
Well, it could have, had they kept her actual background and origin story, and not just made her a product of an end-of-the-Cold War spy program.
Because being an actual Romanov (yes, the Russian dynasty, a 'missing daughter' of Nicholas II, I believe) given over to the Hand (yes, the Marvel Universe ninja organization). She's briefly rescued (as a pre-teen) prior to the mystic rite that would transform her by Captain America and Wolverine, but they accidentally hand her over to her guardian, who's in on the deal. That had several elements that could have moved the MCU forward. With her backstory chopped out with an axe, she's rather uninteresting, and the various Avengers movies (including the Captain America movies) don't seem to know what to do with her. The IM movies actually did the best job with her- part of Fury's organization, but willing and capable of making decisions and taking action.
So lets look at black widow. Shes a spy and an assassin.
Okay. So she doesn't have much in the way of a background that hasn't already been explored in the MCU. The red room was explored on agent carter. She already told the story of what was done to her. Her background doesn't really matter. She doesn't really have interesting villains of her own and she doesn't have any major villains from her past to come after her. So we send her on a mission. Except we have seen that too. It was Captain American Winter Solider and mostly it involved her stealing data off a boat.
Yeah. We could get a real neat spy movie for black widow. But I can't think of how it could really drive the MCU forward.
Well, it could have, had they kept her actual background and origin story, and not just made her a product of an end-of-the-Cold War spy program.
Because being an actual Romanov (yes, the Russian dynasty, a 'missing daughter' of Nicholas II, I believe) given over to the Hand (yes, the Marvel Universe ninja organization). She's briefly rescued (as a pre-teen) prior to the mystic rite that would transform her by Captain America and Wolverine, but they accidentally hand her over to her guardian, who's in on the deal. That had several elements that could have moved the MCU forward. With her backstory chopped out with an axe, she's rather uninteresting, and the various Avengers movies (including the Captain America movies) don't seem to know what to do with her. The IM movies actually did the best job with her- part of Fury's organization, but willing and capable of making decisions and taking action.
Her actual background and story in the comics is she was trained in the Red Room. Which was explored in Agent Carter and talked about in Age of Ultron. All that incredibly convoluted gak would have made for a crap movie. The MCU has done a great job of trimming the fat from everyones classic comic origins and boiling them down to the core elements. Black Widows heritage isn't anything that anyone would give a single gak about in the modern day. And the hand is a crap thing to introduce without adding in magic first. Could you IMAGINE a phase 1 black widow movie that involved the hand and magic before avengers 1?
Mysterio wrote: Problem is, did Red Sparrow already fill that niche?
Or, is it a story anyone want to see?
That's a good example. I haven't watched Red Sparrow because from the trailers, it doesn't seem like it's going to deliver anything that Atomic Blonde didn't already do, and better. I suspect that a Black Widow movie would fall even further into that hole.
Granted, the idea of a human getting magic space powers and becoming Superman isn't particularly original either, but the more generalized the trope is, the more repeatable I guess it feels? Whereas cold war combloc indoctrination and intrigue seems really, really specific.
Mysterio wrote: Problem is, did Red Sparrow already fill that niche?
Or, is it a story anyone want to see?
That's a good example. I haven't watched Red Sparrow because from the trailers, it doesn't seem like it's going to deliver anything that Atomic Blonde didn't already do, and better. I suspect that a Black Widow movie would fall even further into that hole.
Granted, the idea of a human getting magic space powers and becoming Superman isn't particularly original either, but the more generalized the trope is, the more repeatable I guess it feels? Whereas cold war combloc indoctrination and intrigue seems really, really specific.
Weird - how many male spy/assassins/hitman films do we have one at any one time - why is more than one too much for a female lead?
Mr Morden wrote: Weird - how many male spy/assassins/hitman films do we have one at any one time - why is more than one too much for a female lead?
I don't think the gender dynamic comes into play, and that's not how I was framing it. I think when you have too many fairly similar movies come out close to each other one is going to suffer: How many people saw Deep Impact and Armageddon both in theaters?. A Black Widow movie that is a story about how she was indoctrinated by the Soviets into becoming a spy and then counterspying is dipping into the exact niche that Atomic Blonde and Red Sparrow have already tread that perhaps a studio would worry it's over-saturated; the third cold war intrigue piece set in the exact same timeframe, and if they had proceeded with BW along the original rumored timeline, they all would have dropped within the same year, right?
OTOH, both Red Sparrow and Atomic Blonde did pretty well so maybe it wouldn't matter. Maybe the MCU movies are immune to market saturation (or at least, they're the Armageddon to DC's Deep Impact).
Mr Morden wrote: Weird - how many male spy/assassins/hitman films do we have one at any one time - why is more than one too much for a female lead?
I don't think the gender dynamic comes into play, and that's not how I was framing it. I think when you have too many fairly similar movies come out close to each other one is going to suffer: How many people saw Deep Impact and Armageddon both in theaters?. A Black Widow movie that is a story about how she was indoctrinated by the Soviets into becoming a spy and then counterspying is dipping into the exact niche that Atomic Blonde and Red Sparrow have already tread that perhaps a studio would worry it's over-saturated; the third cold war intrigue piece set in the exact same timeframe, and if they had proceeded with BW along the original rumored timeline, they all would have dropped within the same year, right?
OTOH, both Red Sparrow and Atomic Blonde did pretty well so maybe it wouldn't matter. Maybe the MCU movies are immune to market saturation (or at least, they're the Armageddon to DC's Deep Impact).
Atomic Blonde is very different to Red Sparrow - she is a British spy
Spoiler:
well actually she is a American spy
investigating her lovers death and dealing with the various agencies. Its like saying Bond is the same as Mission Impossible, Fast and Furious or John Wick? Yeah they both have Assassins/spies in them but not the same and they coexist with no issues.
Plenty of room for more spy/assassin girls in films I think
Also currently, setting any film in the MCU is a huge immediate boost to any film's prospects - Having a Black Widow film should have worked - not sure why they didn't do it - whether they had the issue with Women can;t sell Superhero films or if Scarlet was unavailable for a full film or whatever I don't know.
Looking forward to Cap Marvel and hopefully a BW film as well. I don't know how long Scarlet has on her MCU contract?
Also currently, setting any film in the MCU is a huge immediate boost to any film's prospects - Having a Black Widow film should have worked - not sure why they didn't do it - whether they had the issue with Women can;t sell Superhero films or if Scarlet was unavailable for a full film or whatever I don't know.
In an industry notorious for “what have you done lately?”, Scarlett has bombed hard in probably her biggest solo budgeted film. Granted, Ghost in the Shell had plenty of other baggage that led to it bombing, but a decent bomb will taint an actors image for some time. I believe she had a dramedy movie bomb that same summer as well.
Regardless, I thought that they had signed on a female director to make a BW movie ?
Mr Morden wrote: Also currently, setting any film in the MCU is a huge immediate boost to any film's prospects - Having a Black Widow film should have worked - not sure why they didn't do it - whether they had the issue with Women can;t sell Superhero films or if Scarlet was unavailable for a full film or whatever I don't know.
CM is an interesting test (or maybe more of a quiz). A female-led superhero film should find its audience, but Carol Danvers isn't close to Princess Diana in terms of cultural awareness and personal attachment. Even the name Captain Marvel was previously owned by the lightning bolt guy and the guy with the nega bands. You can see how this movie might not do well.
And yet the immense power of the Marvel brand has carried other questionable characters across the finish line quite nicely. Still, while CM will figure into the second part of Infinity War, it's also clearly not going to give the answers people are seeking or advance the main storyline. And the box office is probably going to be more reliant on the US market than most because of the female lead.
So my guess is that it'll do well, north of Ant-Man and the Wasp, but south of Wonder Woman and well south of Black Panther.
Mr Morden wrote: Also currently, setting any film in the MCU is a huge immediate boost to any film's prospects - Having a Black Widow film should have worked - not sure why they didn't do it - whether they had the issue with Women can;t sell Superhero films or if Scarlet was unavailable for a full film or whatever I don't know.
CM is an interesting test (or maybe more of a quiz). A female-led superhero film should find its audience, but Carol Danvers isn't close to Princess Diana in terms of cultural awareness and personal attachment. Even the name Captain Marvel was previously owned by the lightning bolt guy and the guy with the nega bands. You can see how this movie might not do well.
And yet the immense power of the Marvel brand has carried other questionable characters across the finish line quite nicely. Still, while CM will figure into the second part of Infinity War, it's also clearly not going to give the answers people are seeking or advance the main storyline.
I wonder if there's a possibility that we do get some 'main storyline' advancement in CM - maybe even just a little bit, as an end credit thing?
I wonder if there's a possibility that we do get some 'main storyline' advancement in CM - maybe even just a little bit, as an end credit thing?
One of the MCU's big secrets is simply that for all the feeling of interconnectivity, pretty much 100% of the main storyline advancement has been in the end credits. The movies themselves are for the the most part, remarkably self contained.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Black Panther was a phenomenon. A movie could be a smash-hit money-machine and still be well south of Black Panther.
Sure, but it seems pretty clear that Marvel's hoping for a cultural boost like WW and BP experienced. It doesn't feel like it's going to be there in the same way for this one. But then...Marvel brand!
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Black Panther was a phenomenon. A movie could be a smash-hit money-machine and still be well south of Black Panther.
Sure, but it seems pretty clear that Marvel's hoping for a cultural boost like WW and BP experienced. It doesn't feel like it's going to be there in the same way for this one. But then...Marvel brand!
I agree that the representation boost likely won't manifest. I suspect Marvel thinks similarly, which is why they are only putting a token effort towards the "first female Marvel hero" salient. However, I doubt it will be needed. This is a partially-cosmic Marvel movie post Guardians, Ragnarok and Infinity War; people will want to see it.
Jude Law is playing Yon Rogg. Everyone else on that team is a classic Mahr Vell villain.
Carol Danvers gets the mind wipe treatment and her Kree mind wipe name is Mahr Vell. The classic comic book Mahr Vell just doesn't exist in the MCU at all. It's just Carol.
Jude Law is playing Yon Rogg. Everyone else on that team is a classic Mahr Vell villain.
Carol Danvers gets the mind wipe treatment and her Kree mind wipe name is Mahr Vell. The classic comic book Mahr Vell just doesn't exist in the MCU at all. It's just Carol.
You're usually a bit out there but...I think you might be on to something.
And if you're not - well, I will wish (maybe!) that this is in fact what they did - it sounds pretty good.
Depending upon what they actually came up with, of course!
Jude Law is playing Yon Rogg. Everyone else on that team is a classic Mahr Vell villain.
Carol Danvers gets the mind wipe treatment and her Kree mind wipe name is Mahr Vell. The classic comic book Mahr Vell just doesn't exist in the MCU at all. It's just Carol.
I think that's a solid theory, yes.
Marvel likes their fan service though, so perhaps she'll be named that after "a legendary Kree hero from the past". That way they're not saying that he didn't exist, which might trigger some geeks.
Jude Law is playing Yon Rogg. Everyone else on that team is a classic Mahr Vell villain.
Carol Danvers gets the mind wipe treatment and her Kree mind wipe name is Mahr Vell. The classic comic book Mahr Vell just doesn't exist in the MCU at all. It's just Carol.
I think that's a solid theory, yes.
Marvel likes their fan service though, so perhaps she'll be named that after "a legendary Kree hero from the past". That way they're not saying that he didn't exist, which might trigger some geeks.
It's not all that dissimilar to what they did with Donald Blake and Thor. Clearly Marvel is happy to condense or remove elements from the comics that just don't really work or are too complicated. Is Thor a spirit of a god in a mortal mans body that switches back and forth or just a god/alien? Easier to just make him the crazy alien.
Is Carol Danvers going to absorb some dna from a kree spy sent to earth to protect it or can she just take his place?
Lance845 wrote: Jude Law is playing Yon Rogg. Everyone else on that team is a classic Mahr Vell villain.
Carol Danvers gets the mind wipe treatment and her Kree mind wipe name is Mahr Vell. The classic comic book Mahr Vell just doesn't exist in the MCU at all. It's just Carol.
My theory is that there is no Carol Danvers and she's a brainwashed shape-shifted Skrull, but obviously that's ludicrous.
Your idea, on the other hand, seems reasonable. They've never stated that Jude Law is playing the original Marvel; everyone just assumes he is and they've not denied it. I think him being the real big bad in this could be a very real possibility. And I really like your idea of her Kree name being "Mahr Vell".
Lance845 wrote: Jude Law is playing Yon Rogg. Everyone else on that team is a classic Mahr Vell villain.
Carol Danvers gets the mind wipe treatment and her Kree mind wipe name is Mahr Vell. The classic comic book Mahr Vell just doesn't exist in the MCU at all. It's just Carol.
My theory is that there is no Carol Danvers and she's a brainwashed shape-shifted Skrull, but obviously that's ludicrous.
It isn't comic book setting crazy, but it feels a bit too much for an MCU movie, especially one that introduces Captain Marvel AND Skrulls to most people for the first time.
Would be a mind blower though, especially if the 'real' Captain Marvel/Carol then shows up?
Your idea, on the other hand, seems reasonable. They've never stated that Jude Law is playing the original Marvel; everyone just assumes he is and they've not denied it. I think him being the real big bad in this could be a very real possibility. And I really like your idea of her Kree name being "Mahr Vell".
The way they're dancing around it, along with some of the blurry stills they've released, it is almost a certainty that Law's character will end up being a bad guy - maybe even the 'Final Boss'. Either because he's a Skrull too, or because he started out good but turned bad because (insert reason). Kind of like how we're getting 'good' Ronan in this movie.
Lance845 wrote: It's not all that dissimilar to what they did with Donald Blake and Thor.
Which I was kind of bummed about, by the by. I mean obviously what they did worked but I liked the Donald Blake alter-ego, as well as the consequences of having the alter-ego (ref Infinity Gauntlet, issue 4, for example).
Lance845 wrote: It's not all that dissimilar to what they did with Donald Blake and Thor.
Which I was kind of bummed about, by the by. I mean obviously what they did worked but I liked the Donald Blake alter-ego, as well as the consequences of having the alter-ego (ref Infinity Gauntlet, issue 4, for example).
Yeah but it's also REAL dumb, adds an unnecessary level of complication to movie and character, and makes Thors every interaction and triumph something that puts Donald in a backseat. Could you imagine the first Thor movie with Donald Blake being the person Thor's soul was bonded to? What a mess that would have been for audiences.
Likewise, does Carol really need a Kree defector who gets his DNA mixed up in hers and then gets killed so that she can take up his mantle? How much time in this movie are we going to dedicate to this extra character and their thrown together relationship before he dies? Isn't it just easier to say Carol had her DNA messed with and then became a protector of earth because feth those Kree/Skrulls?
A lot of characters have unnecessary complications that were made to conform to popular standards of the time. Donald Blake is definitely one of those. I think he can work if you remove Asgard and focus on the idea that the hammer gives him "the power of Thor" and doesn't make him actually Thor, but that drains a lot of the appeal of Loki as an antagonist. The Jane Foster run really highlights why there's appeal in both "actually Thor" and "the power of Thor" as separate things, but ithe Donald Blake versions of the concept lose out on the important bit of the Odinson remaining a separate character.
Jude Law is playing Yon Rogg. Everyone else on that team is a classic Mahr Vell villain.
Carol Danvers gets the mind wipe treatment and her Kree mind wipe name is Mahr Vell. The classic comic book Mahr Vell just doesn't exist in the MCU at all. It's just Carol.
I think that's a solid theory, yes.
Marvel likes their fan service though, so perhaps she'll be named that after "a legendary Kree hero from the past". That way they're not saying that he didn't exist, which might trigger some geeks.
It's not all that dissimilar to what they did with Donald Blake and Thor. Clearly Marvel is happy to condense or remove elements from the comics that just don't really work or are too complicated. Is Thor a spirit of a god in a mortal mans body that switches back and forth or just a god/alien? Easier to just make him the crazy alien.
Is Carol Danvers going to absorb some dna from a kree spy sent to earth to protect it or can she just take his place?
Agreed.
Mysterio wrote: The way they're dancing around it, along with some of the blurry stills they've released, it is almost a certainty that Law's character will end up being a bad guy - maybe even the 'Final Boss'. Either because he's a Skrull too, or because he started out good but turned bad because (insert reason). Kind of like how we're getting 'good' Ronan in this movie.
From what Law has said about the character, it sounds like he's a reactionary type. So I'm guessing the arc will be that he was a good green-suited space cop until his methods became increasingly brutal and unsound. This puts him at odds with his younger strong-willed apprentice, and forces him to obtain a yellow...
...okay, I'm trolling a little there. But I'm gonna bet it's the Sinestro script instead of a Skrull in disguise.
Ouze wrote: How many people saw Deep Impact and Armageddon both in theaters?
Ahem...
I did.
We always wondered.......
There is no way this does as well as Black Panther, and inevitable comparisons between this and Wonder Woman will probably sour the film a bit.
It might get a boost from WW comparisons, provided the last quarter of the film isn't a muddled mess of WTF? and CGI.
I get that it probably (almost certainly) won't have the cultural impact on audiences, but it has a decent chance of being a better film.
Well... Funco pop has released a casting spoiler by showing off some toys for the film namely jude laws character.
Spoiler:
he is playing Yon'Rogg. Part of my prediction is true thus far. Well see how the rest of it pans out. Though it also looks like carols funco pops in the teal uniform is called "Vers". Who knows what thats about.
Am I the only one that thinks this movie is going to be a train wreck?
Of the upcoming movies this looks the least interesting, even detective pikachu has me kind of interested in seeing it... for some reason this marvel flick is leaving me flat, kind of like ant man did.
Lance845 wrote: Well... Funco pop has released a casting spoiler by showing off some toys for the film namely jude laws character.
Spoiler:
he is playing Yon'Rogg. Part of my prediction is true thus far. Well see how the rest of it pans out. Though it also looks like carols funco pops in the teal uniform is called "Vers". Who knows what thats about.
Figured the first thing when the actor wouldn't confirm who he was playing. Regarding the second thing, I imagine it's a V'ger style reduction.
Mysterio wrote: Still might only be you in terms of the whole 'train wreck' thing though.
it will make money due to being marvel but this looks like green lantern and that was a train wreck, hopefully its more like guardians though... hopefully.
Lance845 wrote: This looks nothing like Green Lantern unless you mean the superficial similarity of there is a person in the air force that goes to space.
well if the rumours are true it has more than a superficial similarity, both look to be using CGI too much, captain marvel will likely be betrayed by a close ally that will attempt to kill her, both have leads that are wooden and can barely act, basically this looks like it will have a cookie cutter story just like green lantern did.
I am going off this latest trailer but it does look a lot like "flashy CGI" over story at the moment, Hope I am wrong though.
So, Kree blood, an angry looking Jude Law, and a "rediscover your past" angle? Still on board. She's pulling off the visuals better than I gave her credit for, though. Still would have liked to have seen Katheryn Winnick or Ronda Rousey in that role, but I'm content as is. Unless they gak all over the Mar-Vell portion of the backstory somehow, in which case I'll be boycotting the rest of the MCU.
Just Tony wrote: or Ronda Rousey in that role, but I'm content as is.
That looked good on paper a few years ago, but having seen her few movie roles and her struggling to look remotely convincing in WWE*, I think that's a hard pass.
Also, her star power has fallen hard since the mystique of her undefeated streak was broken by Holly Holm in a one-sided fight and then destroyed again by Amanda Nunes in the next fight(that shouldn't have even happened).
*I don't watch WWE, but she was a big enough MMA star that she still shows up in my twitter feed and favorite MMA websites. Never favorably.
Lance845 wrote: This looks nothing like Green Lantern unless you mean the superficial similarity of there is a person in the air force that goes to space.
well if the rumours are true it has more than a superficial similarity, both look to be using CGI too much, captain marvel will likely be betrayed by a close ally that will attempt to kill her, both have leads that are wooden and can barely act, basically this looks like it will have a cookie cutter story just like green lantern did.
I am going off this latest trailer but it does look a lot like "flashy CGI" over story at the moment, Hope I am wrong though.
Arguably infinity war has far more cgi then green lantern and marvels cgi is top notch. So lets just ignore that argument. Dcs half hearted attempt at a mass cgi gl movie is what made it bad. Not the amount of cgi.
Gl wasnt betrayed by his ally in that movie. They set up sinestro for a sequel that never will be. Carol is less likely to be betrayed by a trusted ally and far more likely to realize shes been being used and they never were her allies.
Ryan reynolds isnt wooden. Danvers doesnt seem it either. From what little we have seen.
I dont know how cookie cutter it will be, but only 2-4 of over 20 marvel movies are middling or worse so far. Thats a pretty great track record. Even if it is cookie cutter in plot there isnt much reason to think they wont sell that cookie fantastically.
Arguably infinity war has far more cgi then green lantern and marvels cgi is top notch. So lets just ignore that argument. Dcs half hearted attempt at a mass cgi gl movie is what made it bad. Not the amount of cgi.
Infinity war is an aberation of a movie, it has so many parts that shouldnt work but somehow they do, its an exception that proves the rule, so nope not ignoring that argument, every movie that takes spectacle over plot suffers for it, just look at all the terrible Star trek and star wars films recently, blimey we could spend hours alone on this subject
Gl wasnt betrayed by his ally in that movie. They set up sinestro for a sequel that never will be. Carol is less likely to be betrayed by a trusted ally and far more likely to realize shes been being used and they never were her allies.
He took the ring at the end, betrayal right there, and thankfully we didnt get another film with reynolds. being used by trusted allies and finding out that..... they betrayed her!!! SHOCK!
Ryan reynolds isnt wooden. Danvers doesnt seem it either. From what little we have seen.
Ryan Reynolds in Ryan reynolds playing ryan reynolds... the movie!!!! apart from dead pool, which is a good fit, he plays the same character in every film and is paint by numbers, very wooden and uninspired by the dialogue, the very definition of wooden!
Brie Larson.... well its a terrible casting choice, she cant act and she is very wooden in every trailer so far, it remains to be seen if she pulls it off, but its not looking good.
I dont know how cookie cutter it will be, but only 2-4 of over 20 marvel movies are middling or worse so far. Thats a pretty great track record. Even if it is cookie cutter in plot there isnt much reason to think they wont sell that cookie fantastically.
Yeah it is and a large majority of those films are cookie cutter and forgettable, possibly 3-4 being great films and damn they are great films, and yep I expect it to do well and make a lot of money (providing Brie larson has a tight reign on her and not generate any controversy that will put fans off).
Another issue I see people raising is that this captain marvel is from the generation of marvel comics that are "woke" and they are worried that this will suffer the curse of "go woke, go broke", I cant see it happening though, the movies seem to be pretty safe from all that nonsense at the moment.
Hulksmash wrote: I disagree with you on pretty much all of this Formosa. But having seen you in several threads arguing about it does no good
Ms. Marvel looks pretty excellent. Brie Larson looks solid and the CGI looks pretty fantastic. So I'm excited!
That’s fine mate, disagree away I don’t mind, like I said to the other poster I hope you enjoy it, I also look forward to hearing what you all have to say when it comes out.
If they ever get around to attempting GL again, they need that Sinestro actor back. Easily the best part of the movie. They also need to have Michael Weatherly play Hal Jordan.
The second trailer didn't do anything for me either. I think Brie Larson is just...Sam Worthington levels of boring. If it's going to be a generic super hero movie, the main actor/actress at least has to be interesting to watch. I'll have to side with Formosa on this one.
It sounds like she is playing a character with amnesia who was then mentally programmed. There might not be much personality for her to convey until the big moment where she 'Blank Slate's her memory back. She's probably going for more of a "I will contact a crisis center" Robocop rather than an Overboard Goldie Hawn.
Larson continues to be utterly insufferable IRL, but thankfully it's rare that I cannot separate the art from the artist.
The film looks... fine. And I like the cast (yay Gemma Chan!). I'll be there opening weekend for sure.
All that said I'm starting to think that this should have been released prior to Infinity War. It makes Infinity War's end credits teaser more powerful (and it makes more sense to non-comic people), and makes her return in A4 all the more special.
And I still hate the magical shrinking-into-nothing headgear.
I’ll probably hate her Magic shrinking headgear less than Panther’s. I hated in Panther how they kept flicking them on and off to talk, but hers leaves your mouth exposed and just covers eyes, so they will hopefully do that less.
H.B.M.C. wrote: And I still hate the magical shrinking-into-nothing headgear.
"We didn't pay so-and-so eleventy bajillion dollars just to hide their face behind a mask!" is probably a hard argument to counter in the studio. Once you start with that premise, it's probably the best aesthetically.
I generally agree with you though. It makes sense for Iron Man and generally, no one else, and even then Iron Man in the MCU has taken it too far (although Blank Panther started in that direction).
It's been a problem since Raimi's Spider-Man movies. Actors hate having their faces covered.
They found a cool solution for that with Iron Man, but others just wouldn't do it (Hemsworth wouldn't wear Thor's helmet 'cause he hated it) whereas others seem ready to commit more to their role than their ego (Evans).
Black Panther is the most egregious example, with their masks flicking off whenever there's a lull in the bad CGI fight so they can talk at one another. Spider-Man's mask vanishing in a second in Infinity War wasn't much better.
I can buy that Carol's is the same tech as Star Lord's mask, but I'd still rather do without the whole fake helmet thing.
It's also the audience can clearly tell who is speaking to who.
At the risk of sounding preachy, not everyone is very good at reading body cues in a conversation. Having the disappearing/reappearing masks nips that potential problem/complaint in the bud.
At the risk of sounding preachy, not everyone is very good at reading body cues in a conversation. Having the disappearing/reappearing masks nips that potential problem/complaint in the bud.
Agreed. And it's not something that just started recently with superhero films.
I get comparing the film to Green Lantern, but doing so kind of skips over what was actually bad about that film. Overused CGI and the like are problems, but what really killed that film was a failure to stick to a single idea and instead jam in as much as possible to rush setting up the movie they actually probably wanted to make (Sinestro Corp War maybe even Blackest Night).
There were.... two... and a half maybe even four or five villains in that film and none of them interact with Hal in a meaningful way. There's no real motives or direction; stuff just kind of happens because we need to see Oa and Poozers and Parallax and Sinestro and Carol and Cadmus and Hector and all the rest without any themes or connective purpose.
I don't feel like that's going to be a problem here. Seeing its clearly going to focus on the Kree-Skrull War with Carol having a history with most of the cast friend and foe, there's really no reason to believe it will be at worst another good if not top 5 worthy first movie along the lines of Strange and Ant-Man. I am way more interested after seeing the second trailer at least. It shows us way more plot than the first trailer and the plot feels interesting, particularly since it feels like they're finally tying SHIELD back around by putting in some of the background behind their interactions with the Kree.
LunarSol wrote: I get comparing the film to Green Lantern, but doing so kind of skips over what was actually bad about that film. Overused CGI and the like are problems, but what really killed that film was a failure to stick to a single idea and instead jam in as much as possible to rush setting up the movie they actually probably wanted to make (Sinestro Corp War maybe even Blackest Night).
There were.... two... and a half maybe even four or five villains in that film and none of them interact with Hal in a meaningful way. There's no real motives or direction; stuff just kind of happens because we need to see Oa and Poozers and Parallax and Sinestro and Carol and Cadmus and Hector and all the rest without any themes or connective purpose.
Completely agree that the issue with the GL movie was the story. It wasn't some of the things that people carp about. Marvel origin films tend to be a little...thin?...on the story side, so I can't imagine it sharing GL's issues.
Even though there are obvious parallels in having a green-suited former fighter pilot hotshot space cop/warrior deal with the increasingly unsound ways of her mentor and superior and soon-to-be enemy.
Still not feeling a WW or BP level smash from this one, though.
At the risk of sounding preachy, not everyone is very good at reading body cues in a conversation. Having the disappearing/reappearing masks nips that potential problem/complaint in the bud.
As someone with an ASD who is therefore actually clinically bad at reading body cues - what a load of nonsense is what I would say to anyone making such a complaint. It's actually easier to follow this kind of stuff in films and other media than IRL because you're one step removed from the interaction. Also, it's rare the character design isn't distinctive - you would have to be completely disinterested or have the attention span of a goldfish to, for example, not be able to grasp that the man in the big silver suit is Rhodey and the man in the big red & gold suit is Stark, even if they've not popped open their faceplates in a while.
Even though there are obvious parallels in having a green-suited former fighter pilot hotshot space cop/warrior deal with the increasingly unsound ways of her mentor and superior and soon-to-be enemy.
Sure, and as a massive GL fan I'd like nothing more than to see that story done well in a film. I'd rather see it be in an actual GL film, but I cannot fathom WB actually figuring out how to pull that off.
Even though there are obvious parallels in having a green-suited former fighter pilot hotshot space cop/warrior deal with the increasingly unsound ways of her mentor and superior and soon-to-be enemy.
Sure, and as a massive GL fan I'd like nothing more than to see that story done well in a film. I'd rather see it be in an actual GL film, but I cannot fathom WB actually figuring out how to pull that off.
The talk has been for some time that the studio's concept for the next GL film will be 'Lethal Weapon in Space', with an experienced Hal Jordan training a young John Stewart. Supposedly Tom Cruise was very interested in playing Hal, but the previous script had Hal dying, and Cruise didn't like it. And I don't disagree! Geoff Johns is supposed to be working on a new script now. Will be interesting see if Cruise remains interested.
And as much as I like to poke fun at Tom Cruise...I honestly think he would *crush* the role. Hotshot but weary space cop, ultra confident but with just a touch of sadness around the edges? He'd kill it, and he knows it.
I'd still love to see the obvious trilogy done right:
1. Hal gets ring and uses it to stop threat on Earth that killed Abin-Sur
2. Hal gets official training under Sinestro, but reveals his brutal subjugation of Korregar
3. Sinestro recruits his own army with its sites set on the home planet of the lantern who disgraced him.
Clear trilogy that both has rising stakes as well as a nice, circular Earth > Space > Earth Meets Space progression that keeps the characters introduced in the first story from becoming irrelevant as things escalate.
Yep, that makes sense. But I think there's some sensitivity about using Hal and not John. "Lethal Weapon" keeps everyone happy. But hey, it's Johns working on the script. He may have different ideas.
gorgon wrote:And as much as I like to poke fun at Tom Cruise...I honestly think he would *crush* the role. Hotshot but weary space cop, ultra confident but with just a touch of sadness around the edges? He'd kill it, and he knows it.
Still say it should be Michael Weatherly. He basically played Hal Jordan every week on NCIS.
Random Trivia: Taika Waititi was in Green Lantern.
Yodhrin wrote: It's actually easier to follow this kind of stuff in films and other media than IRL because you're one step removed from the interaction.
That and the cameras tend to focus on the people speaking at the time, so it's kinda hard to miss!
Even though there are obvious parallels in having a green-suited former fighter pilot hotshot space cop/warrior deal with the increasingly unsound ways of her mentor and superior and soon-to-be enemy.
Sure, and as a massive GL fan I'd like nothing more than to see that story done well in a film. I'd rather see it be in an actual GL film, but I cannot fathom WB actually figuring out how to pull that off.
The talk has been for some time that the studio's concept for the next GL film will be 'Lethal Weapon in Space', with an experienced Hal Jordan training a young John Stewart. Supposedly Tom Cruise was very interested in playing Hal, but the previous script had Hal dying, and Cruise didn't like it. And I don't disagree! Geoff Johns is supposed to be working on a new script now. Will be interesting see if Cruise remains interested.
And as much as I like to poke fun at Tom Cruise...I honestly think he would *crush* the role. Hotshot but weary space cop, ultra confident but with just a touch of sadness around the edges? He'd kill it, and he knows it.
gorgon wrote: Yep, that makes sense. But I think there's some sensitivity about using Hal and not John. "Lethal Weapon" keeps everyone happy. But hey, it's Johns working on the script. He may have different ideas.
I really like John as a character but I find his relatively introspective personality makes him a better support character than lead. He's a great representative of the powers of the Green Lanterns, but when it comes to showcasing what makes the property as a whole compelling, he's just not super ingrained in things. The whole series pivots on the rivalry between Sinestro and Hal simply because that's where it becomes something more than people hitting each other with glowing monochrome cartoon boxing gloves. Theoretically the series could find something else to say. I mean, they could reach back and use the buddy cop dynamic to say something along the lines of the old "GL is racist" deal, but I'd be awfully surprised to see WB go down that route.
They should just do Kyle Raynor. Kyle was always the best GL anyway.
Hal is a lunatic that killed a world because the GL corp wouldn't resurrect a city.
John is pretty great, but kind of dull and dutiful. Better support as mentioned above. He was great in the JL cartoon.
Kyle has both the best will, the most interesting internal conflicts, and has the most creativity with his constructs for external conflicts since hes an artist and comes up with all kinds of wild and crazy stuff.
Kyle Raynor all the way. Oh yeah, his GL costume is also the best.
emptyhat wrote: What about Guy? (I mostly just know him from the Injustice run, which was fairly flattering to him in comparison to the other Earth Green Lanterns.)
There is a reason he was not on the list.
Guy Gardner is a pretty divisive character. Both in universe and out.
Guy is literally the red headed step child of the GL corps.
He has a weird temper and a signature bowl cut that just doesn't gel well with much of anything. He fits as a background/support character. But he excels at nothing.
John Stewart is probably the most stalwart of the main character GLs. The most honorable. The most dedicated. He has a job, a duty, and he sees it fufilled.
Hal is the most flashy and the biggest show off. Hes quips and dare devil antics which makes for good front man because its interesting to watch.
Kyle, again, is actually the best at utilizing what a GL has to offer. But without experience or military training. He has the uphill battle of rising to the challenge of the job and hes interesting because of it.
I honestly know nothing about Simon and Jessica. Well, except that Simon is middle eastern and for some reason he uses a gun despite having the most powerful and versatile weapon in the universe on his finger. (I remember it being a thing that they gave the middle eastern GL a gun because wtfDC)
At this point there are so many earth GLs that it just doesn't make any sense. There are supposed to be 2 per space sector. So why the feth does earth have 6?
Simon carries a gun because there was a story where the rings died, so now he wants a backup, because those rings die like all the time. It super pisses off batman though. Now he kind of has an off again on again relationship with carrying it depending on the current writer.
Does Guy even count as an earth lantern anymore? At one point he was a part of a special ops group. Then he wasn't green, he was red. Then another color. Then he was an alien.
I'd love to see Simon and Jess onscreen, but I don't think it'd work as the first GLs in the DCEU. Both of their characterisations revolve around them not living up to the GL ideal (at least in their own minds) so before you do them you need to show people that ideal: Hal or John do that best, I feel. Kyle was doesn't work for me there because he spends so much time as not a Green Lantern or a Green Lantern+ or whatever (is he still the White Lantern with the power of the Source Wall or something?). And Guy is just a jerk most of the time, it'd be hard to make him sympathetic to a first-time audience.
Back to Captain Marvel though, that second trailer does way more for me than the last one; there's at least some sense of the premise and the various incarnations of the suit all look awesome. Definitely starting to get excited now.
Having the Life Equation was causing issues and he divided that up amongst seven new White Lanterns, who have never been seen again. He’s back to being green.
Guy’s run as a Red was super interesting to read imho. Then they did a thing where all of them got pulled into the past, and Guy was simultaneously wearing a green and red, and then lost the red and went back to full time green like nothing happened and everyone just forgot the Red’s technically own the sector of space where Earth resides and Green’s aren’t allowed in it thanks to Guy. There’s been occasional mentions of the Red’s since, and they’ve got some weird stuff going on, but with no book of their own there’s few details of what exactly.
Lance845 wrote:They should just do Kyle Raynor. Kyle was always the best GL anyway.
HIGHLY subjective.
Lance845 wrote:Hal is a lunatic that killed a world because the GL corp wouldn't resurrect a city.
Try looking at the entirety of Hal's mythos, not just a gakky story by a gakky writer trying to be the next Alan Moore. Ron Marz was on record in interviews saying that he didn't like GL as a character, and his first item of business was to kill him off. He also stated that damn near every other character that he'd be offered he'd kill off the current character and simply make another, usually with some change to their power status quo since he's a fething hack who can't write to save his life. Need proof? Look up the Living Bomb storyline for The Silver Surfer. Hell, Marz wrote out the ring's weaknesses solely because he was too incompetent as a writer to work around them.
Lance845 wrote:John is pretty great, but kind of dull and dutiful. Better support as mentioned above. He was great in the JL cartoon.
John is a great character because of his faults. He got an entire planet wiped out because he overestimated himself. It's kind of a pivotal moment for the character.
Lance845 wrote:Kyle has both the best will, the most interesting internal conflicts, and has the most creativity with his constructs for external conflicts since hes an artist and comes up with all kinds of wild and crazy stuff.
Kyle Raynor all the way. Oh yeah, his GL costume is also the best.
So the fact that you have an artist who actually gives effort to drawing the constructs establishes the character? Horse gak. You want a good appraisal of Raynor's character? Find the issue where Felix Faust appears and regains his memory. The comic starts with a homeless guy getting abducted by magical creatures right outside Raynor's apartment. The very next day he's bitching to one of his supporting cast about how he didn't get much sleep because someone was screaming outside his window in the middle of the night. LITERALLY every GL in existence, yes, even Guy Gardner, would have flown out their window to see what the hell was going on. Kyle Raynor was a petulant slacker child until Judd Winnick turned him into an SJW, and THEN the whole Ion garbage. I freely and proudly admit to signing the online petition back in the 90's to bring Hal Jordan back.
feth Kyle Raynor.
Now that THAT is out of my system, I want to go on record and say I secretly hope that Photon winds up getting powers in the MCU as well.
I do really like Jessica, but her backstory is really convoluted. Her gimmick is that she's a lantern that lives with PTSD, but the actual reason such a person has a GL ring involves an evil ring from a parallel universe that possess people broken by fear. It's a good story but not high on my list of things that should be made into a mainstream film.
Kyle is fine. Emerald Twilight is terrible, but Kyle himself is a solid character. His main problem is just that he's 100% cliche teenage boy stumbles upon a wizard who gives him magic powers to save a far off kingdom from destruction. I actually think he would have paired reasonably well with Ezra Miller's totally not Barry, Barry Allen.
Guy is a fun character when you need what he has to offer. Like John I think he's great in a team. Really though, of the 6 Earth Lanterns, I feel like Baz has struggled the most to find a unique voice. Johns wrote him well, but not for very long and it doesn't feel like the writers who have picked him up since really know how to to define him.
emptyhat wrote: What about Guy? (I mostly just know him from the Injustice run, which was fairly flattering to him in comparison to the other Earth Green Lanterns.)
There is a reason he was not on the list.
Guy Gardner is a pretty divisive character. Both in universe and out.
Guy is the GL who would make Deadpool a better alternative to introduce to your 90 year old grandmother.
emptyhat wrote: What about Guy? (I mostly just know him from the Injustice run, which was fairly flattering to him in comparison to the other Earth Green Lanterns.)
There is a reason he was not on the list.
Guy Gardner is a pretty divisive character. Both in universe and out.
Guy is the GL who would make Deadpool a better alternative to introduce to your 90 year old grandmother.
Agreed. Deadpool would be nice and probably have tea with her. I cannot guarantee Guy wouldn't attack and/or kill her.
Continuing the tangent; is anyone reading Grant Morrison's Green Lantern? It would certainly be interesting to see a film that takes his raw "space cop" angle and runs with it.
To get off the tangent - as someone who was never hugely into the comics barring the odd issue of Spiderman and 2000AD, what's the deal with the Kree in terms of powers? 'Cos so far in MCU tales, we've had "magic healing blood", "bit stronger than humans but will struggle with a C-tier Asgardian/Quake", "able to hold an Infinity Stone without dying(for some reason)", "telepathic and telekenetic" and now "magic blood that gives you a sparkly mohawk and superpowers".
So, are they basically like humans in terms of the distribution of "abilities", but with a slightly higher baseline for mooks?
Kree are generally human, but their homeworld has a higher base gravity that makes the average Kree stronger than the average human. Kree suffer from genetic stagnation and do not naturally evolve. Instead they've taken to heavy genetic experimentation, often by kidnapping other races and experimenting on/with them to find things they can incorporate back into themselves. This tends to lead to a lot of one off results that don't apply to the race as a whole. Most of the experiments that have been applied to the general populace are stuff like toxin immunity.
I'm pretty sure Ronan should only be able to hold the Infinity stone for any length of time while also holding his Univeral Weapon. That thing can redirect a ton of energy and makes the most sense in terms of how he can wield it.
Don't forget also that there's an entertaining aspect of Kree society. Most Kree have blue skin. Caucasians exist in their species, but they are the victims of prejudice and oppression.
LunarSol wrote:Continuing the tangent; is anyone reading Grant Morrison's Green Lantern? It would certainly be interesting to see a film that takes his raw "space cop" angle and runs with it.
I wouldn't douche my worst enemy with any of Grant Morrison's writing. In my mind only Warren Ellis surpasses him in self important trash production masquerading as scripts.
Why WOULDN'T you? Typically with something other than cleaning agents, but there are some materials that would constitute a war crime to use. Grant Morrison's and Warren Ellis' writings are pretty high on THAT list.
LunarSol wrote: Continuing the tangent; is anyone reading Grant Morrison's Green Lantern? It would certainly be interesting to see a film that takes his raw "space cop" angle and runs with it.
Oh sure. And add another GL and I think that's your 'Lethal Weapon'-style story. Vet and rookie GLs working a case together. Heck, make it tie back to Abin Sur's death so that you can bring in elements of Hal's origin and tie it to John's origin.
Just Tony wrote: I wouldn't douche my worst enemy with any of Grant Morrison's writing. In my mind only Warren Ellis surpasses him in self important trash production masquerading as scripts.
LOL, ok.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Could'a sworn this was a Captain Marvel thread...
To be fair, Captain Marvel (at least the Mar-Vell version) is one of Lee's more derivative characters. Lee took GL, turned the ring into bands, and gave him the name of the magic lightning bolt guy. *shrug*
To be fair, Captain Marvel (at least the Mar-Vell version) is one of Lee's more derivative characters. Lee took GL, turned the ring into bands, and gave him the name of the magic lightning bolt guy. *shrug*
Not surprising given he was essentially an editorially mandated creation to lay a legal stake in the ground.
To be fair, Captain Marvel (at least the Mar-Vell version) is one of Lee's more derivative characters. Lee took GL, turned the ring into bands, and gave him the name of the magic lightning bolt guy. *shrug*
Not surprising given he was essentially an editorially mandated creation to lay a legal stake in the ground.
True. And Marvel even embraced the GL comparisons when Quasar moved into Mar-Vell's role and started making solid light constructs with his quantum bands.
I actually liked the original Wendell Vaughn Quasar, before the quantum bands started bouncing around and things got convoluted. Would be cool to see Quasar show up in the MCU at some point, but I can't imagine it ever happening. The MCU Captain Marvel is already a distillation of all the Mar-Vell related stuff from the comics, so I doubt such a similar character in Quasar would be added.
Just Tony wrote: I'm wondering if they are going to ever get around to the whole Adam Warlock thing.
Pretty sure they set that up at the end of Guardians 2
Yes. I saw the movie.
What I MEANT was that I'm wondering if the set up was more for an Endgame set up rather than GotG 3 set up.
I believe they realize that introducing someone on the power level of Adam Warlock to just show up in the Thanos movie and fix everything is a generally bad idea. The reason Cap Marvel was saved for after IW and before EG is so that she is established to go and face and be a part of the events of EG. Also, all stories say that Adam was already planned for Guardians 3.
Just Tony wrote: I'm wondering if they are going to ever get around to the whole Adam Warlock thing.
Pretty sure they set that up at the end of Guardians 2
Yes. I saw the movie.
What I MEANT was that I'm wondering if the set up was more for an Endgame set up rather than GotG 3 set up.
That'd be clownish and hamfisted. As a Guardians villain/opposition, Adam can work with that brief reveal and get a chunk of backstory in 3.
As a last second insertion to defeat Thanos in Endgame, they'd have to establish all the who/what/when/where/whys, justify why he goes from Gold Planet to link up with the Avengers and why he'd even care about Thanos fresh out of the pod. The original comic version with Infinity Gauntlet/Wars had weight on the Adam vs Thanos plot because there were heaps and heaps of backstory (20+ years). The MCU doesn't have that, and stuffing Adam in at the end would cut the legs out under the finale of the last movie.
That ending is already a bit wobbly already since we know all the Stones together have essentially infinite wishing power, but having a new nigh-omnipotent guy show up would really ROFLstomp every emotion they're trying to establish in the Endgame trailer. It wouldn't matter how sad Tony is or how desperate Cap is or that.. uh, Scarlet Witch and Bruce are still... there, I guess? Just popping Adam into existence for Thanos interrupts the Avenger's story and doesn't let Him start one. The ongoing conflict with Thanos was one of Adam's major arcs, just having the resolution and tiny bit of lead-up* as part of the Avengers movie would really short out the whole thing.
*because they still have to follow the story of the Avengers and deal with everything that we see in the trailer and how they get to... that place... where Thanos is.
Just Tony wrote: I'm wondering if they are going to ever get around to the whole Adam Warlock thing.
Pretty sure they set that up at the end of Guardians 2
Yes. I saw the movie.
What I MEANT was that I'm wondering if the set up was more for an Endgame set up rather than GotG 3 set up.
That'd be clownish and hamfisted. As a Guardians villain/opposition, Adam can work with that brief reveal and get a chunk of backstory in 3.
As a last second insertion to defeat Thanos in Endgame, they'd have to establish all the who/what/when/where/whys, justify why he goes from Gold Planet to link up with the Avengers and why he'd even care about Thanos fresh out of the pod. The original comic version with Infinity Gauntlet/Wars had weight on the Adam vs Thanos plot because there were heaps and heaps of backstory (20+ years). The MCU doesn't have that, and stuffing Adam in at the end would cut the legs out under the finale of the last movie.
That ending is already a bit wobbly already since we know all the Stones together have essentially infinite wishing power, but having a new nigh-omnipotent guy show up would really ROFLstomp every emotion they're trying to establish in the Endgame trailer. It wouldn't matter how sad Tony is or how desperate Cap is or that.. uh, Scarlet Witch and Bruce are still... there, I guess? Just popping Adam into existence for Thanos interrupts the Avenger's story and doesn't let Him start one. The ongoing conflict with Thanos was one of Adam's major arcs, just having the resolution and tiny bit of lead-up* as part of the Avengers movie would really short out the whole thing.
*because they still have to follow the story of the Avengers and deal with everything that we see in the trailer and how they get to... that place... where Thanos is.
I disagree, if introduced early enough in the film Warlock would still be a viable component and wouldn't get lost in the shuffle.
does anyone think that now we are getting Xmen back in the MCU (ok possibly getting them back) that we may see a rogue done properly due to captain marvel kicking around in the MCU
I disagree, if introduced early enough in the film Warlock would still be a viable component and wouldn't get lost in the shuffle.
Based on what? Marvel movies have two modes for characters: hour long backstory before the plot starts, or insignificant nothing characters that the heroes beat up as a prelude (or for Iron Man, as an irrelevant side story to Stark's psychological problems)
As is, they've got to deal with the aftermath of the last film, which if they've got any pretense at continuity and filmmaking, is going to be fairly depressing, and filled with angst and rage, and a lot of talking. We know for a fact that means picking up (or travelling to, which will eat more time) at Avenger's HQ, and for no apparent reason taking time to pick up Hawkeye in a new suit, because gods know an archer who doesn't use a bow anymore is crucial for dealing with a cosmic scale threat. Regardless, presumably that involves dealing with some of the chaos we see at the end of IW (with Hill and Fury), and in the trailer (whoever Hawkeye is fighting for whatever reason, which they ALSO have to establish).
Then the ones on Earth actually need to somehow hook up to the main plot, which has feth-all to do with Earth at this point. This can either be Thor taking them somewhere to find out the plot, or this could be where Captain Marvel links in.
On the other hand, you've got Stark monologuing at least a bit, apparently without Nebula, and both of them need to be dragged back to the plot (also possibly by Captain Marvel). Especially Nebula, as she is the ONLY vaguely emotional connection that Thanos has to anything in the entire universe. As a story element and character she seems pretty vital, as the Avengers going to Thanos' hut and informing him he done goofed doesn't hold any water at all.
Save some screen time with periodic scenes of Thanos and his musing (probably with kid Gamora), so there is actually an element of storytelling when the heroes catch up to him and have a confrontation.
Now add action scenes and something to fight against so there is actually a reason to watch this film beyond characters being depressed and angry (because they've several trillion reasons to be).
I have no idea how you'd propose to jam a new character in there and make him interesting or relevant to any of the dozens of things that are already established, need to be resolved or the various confrontations and dialogues that need to happen.
Movies are put together a certain way to deal with a limited run time (even if a lot of films try to stretch that these days). You can't just ignore everything to drop in Adam and pretend audiences will immediately grasp who he is and why he's there. The (future) MCU version of him doesn't mean squat to Thanos, so it would be a meaningless piece of trivia when it should be something important.
Formosa wrote: does anyone think that now we are getting Xmen back in the MCU (ok possibly getting them back) that we may see a rogue done properly due to captain marvel kicking around in the MCU
Maybe? Eventually? I could see them using rogue as a way to put Captain Marvel out of the movies when her contract is up.
Honestly Rogues most interesting aspects is not being suped on Cap Marvel powers. It's her personal issues and adaptability. X men evolution had a good rogue and she never had all the power of the 90s xmen cartoon. Rogue has been great in recent years in the comics and she no longer has Danvers powers.
Plus MCU Captain Marvel's powers clearly aren't just the power set that Rogue got in the comics. She's tossing a lot of energy around, and Rogue just had the Strength, Invulnerability and Flight.
And she mostly got it for the arc to get her on the X-men and to shuffle the cast around. There was a lot of good drama with her switching teams, and how the X-men dealt with a powerless Danvers, but I suspect the driving focus was to have a Heavy in the lineup when they pushed half the cast off with injuries during the Marauder's attack (Colossus was benched). And to have a character arc-worthy trade-off in de-powering Storm, since Rogue was the theoretical target of Forge's anti-powers gun.
I grew up with the Ms Marvel Rogue, but I vastly prefer her incarnations without those powers. She gets put to better use when she's not got them to fall back on.
Mysterio wrote: Rogue's comic backstory is too much of a mess for the movies.
It hasn't made it over intact yet for that reason - and it won't be for the same reasons.
Plus, her 'basic' story is "good enough", I guess, for the movie setting?
They retconned Captain Marvels backstory in the comic so it would be more in line with the movie and wouldn't require Mar-Vell so I imagine the same could be done to Rogue.
But again, its not as interesting to have always crazy strong flying invulnerable rogue. Shes at her best when shes grabing powers and adapting and doesnt have permanent flying super punches to fall back on.
Formosa wrote: does anyone think that now we are getting Xmen back in the MCU (ok possibly getting them back) that we may see a rogue done properly due to captain marvel kicking around in the MCU
Maybe? Eventually? I could see them using rogue as a way to put Captain Marvel out of the movies when her contract is up.
Honestly Rogues most interesting aspects is not being suped on Cap Marvel powers. It's her personal issues and adaptability. X men evolution had a good rogue and she never had all the power of the 90s xmen cartoon. Rogue has been great in recent years in the comics and she no longer has Danvers powers.
Ah, you make such a good point, but I really want both Rogues.
My two least favorite things about the X-Men are Cyclops and Superman Rogue. One I grudgingly have to deal with and the other we can avoid because it was bad.
This film seems risky. Not risky in the sense of trying something new that might catch audiences off guard and you’re not sure how they will react. Rather, it seems risky in the sense of assuming the audience will like it because you think they ought to like it. I have a feeling it will be divisive, something the MCU has wisely steered clear of thus far.
Risky is okay if the movie is good.. Just hope they don't make a bad story movie; slap the marvel logo on it. then blame the fans because it didn't do well.
Guardians of the Galaxy was a risky movie but had a solid story. Start with a good story then work from there.
The Last Jedi really broke my trust with franchises; Now I wait for friends to see it and let me know what they think before I consider going to watch it.
The first Guardians movie is a good example of Marvel doing something outside of what had been their wheelhouse up to that point. That’s the kind of risk where you’re taking a chance on whether the audience will like something other than what has been successful previously.
Captain Marvel doesn’t seem like that kind of risk. To the contrary, it seems to be a completely conventional Marvel movie given the current state of the MCU. By contrast, what seems risky about Captain Marvel is shifting from trying to deliver what you suspect the customers want to assuming the customers should want what you’re willing to sell them.
To me, it looks like Marvel is giving us another cosmic...ish story, introducing a new character (who will hopefully have some charisma in the movie), and using the time of the setting as an excuse for comedic shenanigans. That feels like one of the things I want from Marvel.
Well the marketing (trailer, comments from Brie Larson) indicate the main character is extremely powerful but at the same time she seems boring, unengaging, stilted, whatever you want to call it. My impression is that I am supposed to like her, that I am expected to like her, regardless of whether she is actually likeable, because she is powerful, full of conviction and confidence, etc.
I dont really understand the problem. She seems parfectly fine in the latest trailers. I'm not sure how we can judge charisma upon 2 second snapshots and sound bytes.
In point of fact, no one said anything of the kind at the time. It’s not even remotely convincing to say it now, either, especially for the sake of a snarky drive by comment like that.
The trailer for First Avenger shows Cap’s character, in both senses, is not about physical but rather moral strength. Contrast to Captain Marvel, where the trailer just hammers away at her being physically powerful and justifiably arrogant about it.
Hopefully that's the Kree brain-stuff, and she starts to behave a bit more like a human person as her memories of being Carol Danvers return to her. Assuming that's how they arrange things in the film.
Sure, it could be they are just mismarketing the film. I mean, I think about seeing a movie introducing the Kree-Skull War and I feel excited ... then I watch these trailers and I’m like, nevermind.
AegisGrimm wrote: I dont really understand the problem. She seems parfectly fine in the latest trailers. I'm not sure how we can judge charisma upon 2 second snapshots and sound bytes.
It's easy when you actively want to hate something. I'm reserving judgement until I see the film. Hell, I thought Chris Evans was a bad choice for Cap when he was announced, and I'm more than happy that I was wrong.
Manchu wrote: Well the marketing (trailer, comments from Brie Larson) indicate the main character is extremely powerful but at the same time she seems boring, unengaging, stilted, whatever you want to call it. My impression is that I am supposed to like her, that I am expected to like her, regardless of whether she is actually likeable, because she is powerful, full of conviction and confidence, etc.
That does seem like a pretty big problem. However, the trailers let us know this is a story about someone who has been mindwiped, so a lot of her charisma will only come into play after that (hopefully brief) segment of the story is overcome. I still trust Marvel's story telling, so I'm expecting her character to have character during the film. I guess we'll see whether or not that faith is justified.
Robocop would seem pretty lacking in personality, too, if you cut a trailer from his early action scenes.
But I can *defintiely* see where Manchu is coming from.
Not sure if it is because Marvel thinks we are supposed to like her 'just because', but her depiction so far as been quite stotic/bored/disengaged/etc.
I'll also be happy to see that this isn't the case, and as she recovers her memories and becomes more "Carol" and less "Vers", she opens up, etc.
Kree-Skrull War — now there’s the promise of a sprawling adventure! Hence why I actually do want Captain Marvel to be a big success (unlike the Inhumans). And hence why I am concerned that while I can see that I am expected to like and be interested in this character, the trailer gives me no reason to be. Quite the reverse, unfortunately.
RoboCop is an interesting comparison. That film was a parody of the excesses and superficiality of American action schlock. The title character was designed as the personification of how lead characters in such movies were supposed to be cool because they were consumate badasses, at least as far as inflicting violence goes - and this generally at the expense of complexity or nuanced performances.
I’d submit that RoboCop, even just as he appears in the trailers for the original picture, is still more likeable than Bree Larson’s Captain Marvel. They are neck-in-neck as a matter of being emotionally blank and overwhelmingly characterized by violence. But RoboCop doesn’t come across as conceited.
I'm not terribly worried about power level. Thor's last two appearances have been pretty crazy all things considering, but they come at specific story beats and aren't really what the movie is about for long. I mean, the total run time of Thor decimating the purestrain horde, punching through the skeletons on the Bifrost and fighting the Hulk is probably short enough to fit in one trailer when you think about it.
Marvel's been exceptionally good at hiding what its films are really about lately. It seemed to really start with Homecoming, but the last several films have really stood out for all the story elements that have not been the focus of the trailers.
I think its funny how questionable movies get a shorter release window than movies they know will do well..
So if a movie is announced a few weeks before its released you can imagine how good it is...
But I agree with Manchu; I think the marketing group didn't see the movie and just making it up as the go along..
Manchu wrote: Kree-Skrull War — now there’s the promise of a sprawling adventure! Hence why I actually do want Captain Marvel to be a big success (unlike the Inhumans). And hence why I am concerned that while I can see that I am expected to like and be interested in this character, the trailer gives me no reason to be. Quite the reverse, unfortunately.
Does anyone really think they're going to do that justice on a budget of $150 mil, though? I have a feeling that a good chunk of the film will be her walking around on Earth to keep the budget down, like Thor.
Even so, Marvel Studios only needs to introduce the Kree-Skrull War in this picture. If the title character wins over audiences, we can expect to see the really good stuff down the line. But if this becomes another “divisive” (i.e., paid critics love it, audiences don’t) kind of film, it may be less likely.
Mysterio wrote: Yeah, I feel as if this film will be fairly...critic-proof.
A sort of...Anti-Venom.
Ah venom... I should hate that film, but for whatever reason I don’t, I went in with such low expectations and actually really enjoyed it, I hope we get another, 18 this time though eh Sony.
It was funny this same topic came up with my buddies today the worry was one was reading about leaked information
on the Captain Marvel toys. Basically calling her the most powerful hero in the known universe..
Manchu wrote: The trailer for First Avenger shows Cap’s character, in both senses, is not about physical but rather moral strength. Contrast to Captain Marvel, where the trailer just hammers away at her being physically powerful and justifiably arrogant about it.
Captain Marvel actually hammers away at her being a woman, and that we should be patting Disney Marvel on the back for (finally) doing a feminst-themed (live action) superhero woman movie (a la Wonder Woman, ignoring Catwoman, Elektra, Salt, etc.).
Not that there's anything wrong with that, but I certainly hope there's more to the movie than the fact that Marvel can make a woman-led movie; the outside chance that it's as good and ground-breaking as Black Panther is a bit much, but if it can be the female equivalent, I'll be happy to watch it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Who cares what critics think of Venom? It’s made $850M+ on a $100M budget!
If the budget was $100M, then it needs to pull at least $300M at the box office to cover costs including marketing and so forth.
Manchu wrote: Still leaving over half a billion in profit ...
Not exactly. Those box office numbers are split between the theater and the studio.
$212M US Domestic = $125M studio revenue (80% opening weekend, tailing down to 50%)
+$641M global box = +$200M studio revenue (50% for most countries, but only 25% back from Japan & China)
The studio spent $100M production + $100M marketing, but they are getting back roughly $325M, so that's a tidy $125M profit for them.
The remaining $500M is going to theater owners, who have to pay for theater operations and so forth.
And part of that operational cost is paying for distribution, which makes its way onto that profit figure, too. On top of that, earning the confidence of cinemas around the globe plus developing the IP’s value. Venom is a hugely successful movie, especially considering rather low expectations from paid critics (which, magically, were [self]-fulfilled).
I think it's entirely possible that Captain Marvel starts off the movie as an indifferent superpowered A-hole, and then when she gets her feet kicked out from under her and finds out everything that was done to her, she finds her humanity as she becomes Carol again, but now with superpowers.
The standard hero trope. Basically Thor with a female lead. I think people just seem to reeeeaally want Marvel to finally fail at a movie.
AegisGrimm wrote: I think it's entirely possible that Captain Marvel starts off the movie as an indifferent superpowered A-hole, and then when she gets her feet kicked out from under her and finds out everything that was done to her, she finds her humanity as she becomes Carol again, but now with superpowers.
The standard hero trope. Basically Thor with a female lead. I think people just seem to reeeeaally want Marvel to finally fail at a movie.
Marvel does that a lot, and if you recall, it was Iron Man that did it before Thor (and Guardians).
It is amazing how long of a run Marvel has had without an obviously "bad" movie. But people thought that Guardians might be bad. And there were people who doubted RDJ as Iron Man before that came out. We'll wait and see.
That's my thought, too. Depending on how I feel after watching Aquaman, the worst Marvel movie is likely still likely on par with the best DC movie (Wonder Woman at this point, for me).
Mysterio wrote: Yeah, I feel as if this film will be fairly...critic-proof.
A sort of...Anti-Venom.
I thought critic proof meat that the film would do well despite critics givin bad reviews. Venom was critic proof. Do you mean the opposite, where critics will love the film but audiences won't?
Really good point about horror movies and, by implication, excellent point that Venom is a horror (or, specifically, horror/comedy) film.
I really doubt paid critics will pan Captain Marvel. It’s far more likely that, if there is any problem, it will be that the movie divides the heretofore unified MCU audience - which is much, much worse.
The flipside of being consistently successful is having no experience with overcoming failure. Venom and Into the Spider-Verse show Sony has some real insight there.
For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.
CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.
JohnHwangDD wrote: For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.
CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.
I think "dividing" is a bit much. Once again, there might be a vocal vast minority on the internet who throws a hissy fit over the fact that captain marvel has tits. But the vast majority of people who go see marvel movies are people who don't read into any of the crap we sit on here and talk about. Most people will just go watch it because its the next marvel movie. it will make a ridiculous pile of money. Most people will enjoy the movie going experience even if it isnt their favorite movie. And the marvel machine will keep chugging along.
JohnHwangDD wrote: For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.
CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.
Is CM a feminist film?
As far as I can see, so far anyway it is a superhero film.
JohnHwangDD wrote: For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.
CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.
Is CM a feminist film?
As far as I can see, so far anyway it is a superhero film.
JohnHwangDD wrote: For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.
CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.
Is CM a feminist film?
As far as I can see, so far anyway it is a superhero film.
What did I miss?
It's a feminist film so that anyone who ends up disliking it can be dismissed as a misogynist.
JohnHwangDD wrote: For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.
CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.
Is CM a feminist film?
As far as I can see, so far anyway it is a superhero film.
What did I miss?
It's a feminist film so that anyone who ends up disliking it can be dismissed as a misogynist.
Mysterio wrote: Yeah, I feel as if this film will be fairly...critic-proof.
A sort of...Anti-Venom.
I thought critic proof meat that the film would do well despite critics givin bad reviews. Venom was critic proof. Do you mean the opposite, where critics will love the film but audiences won't?
"Critic-Proof" in the sense that no critic will pan it regardless of how...not good it may (or may not!) end up being.
I mean, sure, I hope it is really good, and eventually "Carol" shows up and replaces "Vers", and that's when she goes over 9000.
AND that's also when her 'real' personality shows up too?
Terminator 2 was a great film with a natural progression of Sarah Conner. She finds out a future robot is out to kill her and starts to
prepare by improving herself; training with guns, there is a reason and history shown.
Captain Marvel is looking like the new Star Wars with the Mary sue syndrome; No reason why the person is so good at something. Just natural.
Rey a homeless girl that spends her days tearing down old war equipment suddenly can fly like a ace and do powerful things with the force with no training.
That is bad story telling but people try to lump it in with misogynist and feminist to deflect the real problem .. its a bad movie.
I am hoping they don't fail but they must have a good story. the current trailer was't the best so I start to worry.
JohnHwangDD wrote: For Marvel a "failure" is what others might consider a fair success. The Hulk movie, for example. Or Thor 2. Not "bad", but not especially "good" compared to the other movies.
CM is already dividing the MCU audience, simply by being a feminist film, but if it's a fundamentally good film, it'll do great like Wonder Woman.
Is CM a feminist film?
As far as I can see, so far anyway it is a superhero film.
What did I miss?
From what I can tell, it is being coded and marketed that way.
It can be both.
There is a sub-faction of toolbags who can't stand to see non-white CIS male leads succeed, thinking the world is some sort of zero-sum game in which the presence of a non-white CIS male lead somehow directly devalues their existence as white CIS males. feth 'em.
I don't know whether the movie will have any feminist message or not, but the first trailer was marketed in such a way as to guarantee some anti-feminist pushback. I think Marvel was hoping to tap into some of Wonder Woman's cultural moment, but for various reasons couldn't.
"Anti feminist" is like saying "pro racist" in that, for whatever reason, you have decided that equality or representation or whatever is something that needs to be fought or have a stand taken against it.
Yeah. Equality activists have idiots amongst them. But the core message is a "no gak" thing any reasonable person is for.
Basically, who gives a gak what the anti feminists have to say?
Lance845 wrote: "Anti feminist" is like saying "pro racist" in that, for whatever reason, you have decided that equality or representation or whatever is something that needs to be fought or have a stand taken against it.
Yeah. Equality activists have idiots amongst them. But the core message is a "no gak" thing any reasonable person is for.
Basically, who gives a gak what the anti feminists have to say?
I was attempting for a term more neutral than incel or MRA. I'm talking about a very small segment of the audience who are very active in YouTube comments. I saw the marketing as a sort of a negative dog whistle, where most people won't notice anything political but a small few will be triggered.
And for better or for worse, stirring up the anti-whatevers or tiptoeing around them is now an unavoidable aspect of marketing.
