It was quite good. It was one of the better Marvel single-hero movies. Plot was perhaps bit more ambitious than these usually have. In the trailers, Brie Larson came across like she doesn't have any range, but it worked better in the film itself as her character was written somewhat blunt and Kree are supposed to be less emotional than humans.For the most part, Kree didn't feel alien enough, though pink Kree are almost indistinguishable from humans in the comics too.
De-aging made the old cast look somewhat lifeless, particularly Gregg. Talos was made too much of a wuss IMO. Setting the movie in the '90s was neat, though much of that humour prolly won't work 20 years from now.

Are there indeed 2 post credits sequences? No spoilers, I just want to know if I should hang around.

Yes, mid-credits and at the very end. As usual, latter is not really important if you're in a hurry.

I think it was the best character intro movie so far outside of maybe Spiderman: Homecoming.
Definitely stronger than the Phase 1 movies, even Iron Man (which is the strongest, but comes across a little dated in comparison to how good phase 3 has been).

Brie Larson was excellent. Her character is a bit arrogant and hotheaded. Sarcastic and dry as well. The mid credits scene was amazing, my entire theatre erupted at the end of it.
As a whole, the movie was undoubtedly better than Wonder Woman. Not perfect by any means, some moments were a bit meandering, but it didn't ever just peter out the way WW did during the final act at any point.

Highlights


I see the largest criticisms being that Danver's is a dry, sarcastic character, the girl power themes (they don't reduce the film at all imo), and Danver's final power level being "too high".

On the last bit.

 Ouze wrote:
Are there indeed 2 post credits sequences? No spoilers, I just want to know if I should hang around.

Yep. Mid-credits is plot-relevant, post-credits is just a joke scene if you want to get out early.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the movie itself IMO it's a pretty generic but well executed superhero film, about what you'd expect from the MCU at this point. Nothing too bad to criticize, but nothing terribly innovative either. But as a pilot I'm fangirling so hard over her origin story.

Got me a free Odeon ticket, which I'll be using tomorrow!

Rather looking forward to this.

Presumably we have to talk in spoiler tags incase someone who hasn't seen Captain Marvel clicks on the Captain Marvel thread somehow not expecting to see people talking about Captain Marvel in the Captain Marvel thread that's about Captain Marvel?

My chief complaint is the fight scene on the cruiser when she goes up against the Kree. Like the very first thing she does is throw a dude into a Jukebox, but the music started like five or ten seconds before that. Hitting the jukebox should have caused the music to start playing. Total missed opportunity.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Presumably we have to talk in spoiler tags incase someone who hasn't seen Captain Marvel clicks on the Captain Marvel thread somehow not expecting to see people talking about Captain Marvel in the Captain Marvel thread that's about Captain Marvel?

Yes, thats standard practice.

There's a difference between general chit chat, mentioning scenes, and giving away twists.

So spoiler tags pls

I got to see this for free at a midnight showing (Movie theater owner is a friend who owed me a favor).

My honest review: It's a Marvel Movie. Followed a somewhat set template.

The CGI was a bit choppy in a couple places, but that's happened in other MCU movies too (Iron Man in Civil War).

Compared to other Marvel movies in quality, I'd put it just above The Incredible Hulk, and below Thor: The Dark World.

Really liked it. Slow burner to begin with, but Larson was fun to watch throughout and had great chemistry with Samuel L Jackson.

The bit where her powers finally click into top gear was a proper cinema goosebumps moment for me. Helps that I'm a fan of that No Doubt song.

Hopefully the movie can smash through the senseless online negativity that has preceded it. It certainly deserves to.

Oh, by the way, the opening “Marvel” intro was very nice and well done.

So basically...ignore the trolls online and enjoy a fun movie? RT audience numbers are low, critics are high. Sounds like I'll just go and enjoy a fun movie. Plus, seeing Ronan and Korath back on the screen again should be fun!

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So basically...ignore the trolls online and enjoy a fun movie? RT audience numbers are low, critics are high. Sounds like I'll just go and enjoy a fun movie. Plus, seeing Ronan and Korath back on the screen again should be fun!

Ignore the RT "fan reviews." If you actually read through them, it sure looks like a lot of the negative ones were written by people who haven't actually seen it. No detail other than what you would get off the trailers.

For full disclosure I have no interest in seeing this film, I am just not a fan of the hit thats been put on it before its even out.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Presumably we have to talk in spoiler tags incase someone who hasn't seen Captain Marvel clicks on the Captain Marvel thread somehow not expecting to see people talking about Captain Marvel in the Captain Marvel thread that's about Captain Marvel?

This makes sense the opening weekend / first week or so of a movie release, when you get people going into the thread just wanting to see if the movie was any good or not (and nothing else).

It's, uh, a little harder to justify when people complain about a movie that has been out 6 months, let alone stuff like Game of Thrones - bruh, you had like 20 years to read the book.

I quite enjoyed it, would definitely recommend it.

I had read a lot of criticism that Brie was wooden or without emotion but I thought she came across as pretty relatable.

Also hope that Goose gets his own movie.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
So basically...ignore the trolls online and enjoy a fun movie? RT audience numbers are low, critics are high. Sounds like I'll just go and enjoy a fun movie. Plus, seeing Ronan and Korath back on the screen again should be fun!

Yes, if you have liked recent Marvel output, I don't see why you wouldn't enjoy this.

 Souleater wrote:
I quite enjoyed it, would definitely recommend it.

I had read a lot of criticism that Brie was wooden or without emotion but I thought she came across as pretty relatable.

In fairness I had my doubts after trailers, where she looked really wooden...but it worked considerably better in the context of the entire movie. It's quite different from comics Carol Danvers, but I liked it overall, not every superhero needs to be Peterparkeresque wisecrack machine.

Absolutely loved it, though there was a continuity error I'm still kinda scratching my head on

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

Spoiler:

If someone else has a better theory to explain what happens to it between Captain Marvel and Avengers I'd love to hear it

 LordofHats wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

Spoiler:

If someone else has a better theory to explain what happens to it between Captain Marvel and Avengers I'd love to hear it

Spoiler:

I thought that was found when they found caps body at the end of The First Avenger? Am I imagining that?

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

Spoiler:

If someone else has a better theory to explain what happens to it between Captain Marvel and Avengers I'd love to hear it

Spoiler:

I thought that was found when they found caps body at the end of The First Avenger? Am I imagining that?

Spoiler:

That's how they make it seem, but we can clearly see in Captain Marvel that Fury has the Tesseract for almost 20 years

The Norse people had it
then the Red Skrull
.....well Tony Starks Dad found the tesseract at some point after WW2.(that was the scene underwater)
Then the Kree got it.
then Shield
Then Loki
Then Loki again
Then Thanos

I think that is right

Oh yeah you're right. I forgot about the submersible scene with Tony's dad.

I Gave the movie a b-. It was not on the level of Iron Man 1, AntMan, Avengers 1, Black Panther.

I loved the side characters and hidden comic book geek gems. The main did a satisfactory job. Just nothing to blow you away.

I wish the Kree were Kree super powered foes and not just glowing stick wielders.

It was a very entertaining movie, but near the bottom of the MCU


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you looked at Alita Battle Angel and how that character dealt with memory loss and compare it to Captain Marvel.....this movie was a much lower sophistication of pulling that aspect off.(and clunkier too)

 admironheart wrote:

.....well Tony Starks Dad found the tesseract at some point after WW2.(that was the scene underwater)

This is correct. Stark found it while looking for Cap in the late 40s early 50s. What happened to it from there over the next 40-50 years is a mystery. But it's a lot of time for a lot of things to happen.

 admironheart wrote:

If you looked at Alita Battle Angel and how that character dealt with memory loss and compare it to Captain Marvel.....this movie was a much lower sophistication of pulling that aspect off.(and clunkier too)

Yikes and I thought Alita dealt with it in an incredibly bad fashion up to the point I was rolling eyes all the time (it didn't help I thought pretty mch all the actors in that movie were terrible). Did it harmed the story severely though?

Rumors have it that Marvel now has two versions of Avengers Infinity War Endgame. They supposedly have an altered version that cuts some scenes with Captain Marvel and replaces her with other Avengers to downplay her somewhat. Which version they end up having as their theatrical release is depending on how well reviewed Captain Marvel is.

Also, rumors state that some of the existing actors have taken issue with Larson.

This film was in the okay-ish category for me. All this makes me wonder if Larson's 7-film contract might be in question.

I doubt that very much. Making alternate versions of a movie would be very expensive, and Infinity War/Endgame were expensive enough as it is.

What Marvel has to ensure is that Carol doesn't beat Thanos down the way Superman curpstomped Steppenwolf.

 AduroT wrote:
My chief complaint is the fight scene on the cruiser when she goes up against the Kree. Like the very first thing she does is throw a dude into a Jukebox, but the music started like five or ten seconds before that. Hitting the jukebox should have caused the music to start playing. Total missed opportunity.

I think fear of being seen as copying GoTG is what stopped the music in this film being used diegetically. It's a shame really, because so many of the great songs in the film were just "Here! 90's song! Geddit!" with, I think, only one song playing on the radio (when Carol and Fury first approach the plane Maria is working on).

I still smiled every time a new song started playing, but they could have melded them into the movie a bit more without stealing GotG shtick.

 cuda1179 wrote:
This film was in the okay-ish category for me. All this makes me wonder if Larson's 7-film contract might be in question.

I very much doubt Brie Larson is in the Edward Norton category. Box office numbers will dictate her longevity in the MCU... and early indications are healthy

 cuda1179 wrote:
All this makes me wonder if Larson's 7-film contract might be in question.

They all get large film contracts. Doesn't mean the films get made. It only means that should Marvel choose to make a film, the actor in question has to come back (within reason) or have their contract bought out.

 cuda1179 wrote:
Rumors have it that Marvel now has two versions of Avengers Infinity War Endgame. They supposedly have an altered version that cuts some scenes with Captain Marvel and replaces her with other Avengers to downplay her somewhat. Which version they end up having as their theatrical release is depending on how well reviewed Captain Marvel is.

Also, rumors state that some of the existing actors have taken issue with Larson.

This film was in the okay-ish category for me. All this makes me wonder if Larson's 7-film contract might be in question.

There's also a rumor that Chris Hemsworth is actually 7 feet tall and shoots bolts of lightning out of his arse.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Rumors have it that Marvel now has two versions of Avengers Infinity War Endgame. They supposedly have an altered version that cuts some scenes with Captain Marvel and replaces her with other Avengers to downplay her somewhat. Which version they end up having as their theatrical release is depending on how well reviewed Captain Marvel is.

Also, rumors state that some of the existing actors have taken issue with Larson.

This film was in the okay-ish category for me. All this makes me wonder if Larson's 7-film contract might be in question.

There's also a rumor that Chris Hemsworth is actually 7 feet tall and shoots bolts of lightning out of his arse.

Wrong Australian, you're thinking of Mel Gibson

 Flashman wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Rumors have it that Marvel now has two versions of Avengers Infinity War Endgame. They supposedly have an altered version that cuts some scenes with Captain Marvel and replaces her with other Avengers to downplay her somewhat. Which version they end up having as their theatrical release is depending on how well reviewed Captain Marvel is.

Also, rumors state that some of the existing actors have taken issue with Larson.

This film was in the okay-ish category for me. All this makes me wonder if Larson's 7-film contract might be in question.

There's also a rumor that Chris Hemsworth is actually 7 feet tall and shoots bolts of lightning out of his arse.

Wrong Australian, you're thinking of Mel Gibson

The point being that you can say "there's a rumor" and then insert any hogwash you want after it.

There are no rumors about her conflicts with any of the cast. I don't think at any point in the MCU there have ever been rumors about issues between primary cast members except for the first Rhodey (drawing a blank) and he's gone. They've done a very good job of casting professionals.

Captain Marvel has already made $62 million through Friday. It's ahead of GotG2, Homecoming, and Dr. Strange and behind Black Panther (-14) and Infinity War (-40~ of course) at this point. The negative hype was an alt-right/4Chan ploy that had no basis in reality.

Not only have they cast professionals but other actors in the group have said that when they cast a new actor they get them together with the rest of the Marvel crew to make sure that everyone can get along well enough because a bad relationship off screen could damage plans moving forward. Brie Larson would not have been hired if she went in there burning bridges.

Both Cumberbatch and Tom Holland went through that process.

Don't just say "rumor has it". Site a source that isn't some a hole with an agenda.

I found it ok. Overall I found the character rather boring but the interactions with Fury and Talos were decent which makes me think she would works fine as a secondary character but trying to make her front and center doesn't really play to her strengths (at the moment). I'm not mad I saw it and it had a few fun moments but I can't imagine seeing it again; it is on the lower end of the MCU movies for me. Unfortunately instead of giving the character time to grow on audiences Marvel seems to think we'll think she is awesome from the go and pushing Carol into the front right off.

 Lance845 wrote:
Not only have they cast professionals but other actors in the group have said that when they cast a new actor they get them together with the rest of the Marvel crew to make sure that everyone can get along well enough because a bad relationship off screen could damage plans moving forward. Brie Larson would not have been hired if she went in there burning bridges.

Both Cumberbatch and Tom Holland went through that process.

Don't just say "rumor has it". Site a source that isn't some a hole with an agenda.

I did not know that, but it makes sense. Given that Brie Larson and Samuel L Jackson have worked together before, I doubt there was an issue.

Just out the screening.

Pretty bloody good in my book. Decent comic bits, action was easy to follow. Certainly blows away Wonder Woman.

Just got back from seeing this and I really enjoyed it. Well worth the ticket price IMO.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I doubt that very much. Making alternate versions of a movie would be very expensive, and Infinity War/Endgame were expensive enough as it is.

There are a few movies with multiple endings (1408 has like, 5?). It doesn't take much either. Reorder some footage, throw in a few extra seconds here and there and you can completely change the way a movie ends.

It's actually not that expensive to shoot multiple endings. It's the editing that probably makes it expensive.

I'd be skeptical only because circumstances around Larson and the internet being the internet (where nothing untrue has ever been said).

Anyone else not really bothered by Fury’s de-ageing?

I know Samuel L Jackson has aged brilliantly. But I didn’t even notice it.

 Ahtman wrote:
I found it ok. Overall I found the character rather boring but the interactions with Fury and Talos were decent which makes me think she would works fine as a secondary character but trying to make her front and center doesn't really play to her strengths (at the moment). I'm not mad I saw it and it had a few fun moments but I can't imagine seeing it again; it is on the lower end of the MCU movies for me. Unfortunately instead of giving the character time to grow on audiences Marvel seems to think we'll think she is awesome from the go and pushing Carol into the front right off.

How is this really different from any other MCU movie/character? You get your origin story movie, then you're up front as a main character. Did you also complain that Iron Man or Captain America got a single movie and then went straight to the front in Avengers?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Anyone else not really bothered by Fury’s de-ageing?

I know Samuel L Jackson has aged brilliantly. But I didn’t even notice it.

Couldn’t even tell.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
I found it ok. Overall I found the character rather boring but the interactions with Fury and Talos were decent which makes me think she would works fine as a secondary character but trying to make her front and center doesn't really play to her strengths (at the moment). I'm not mad I saw it and it had a few fun moments but I can't imagine seeing it again; it is on the lower end of the MCU movies for me. Unfortunately instead of giving the character time to grow on audiences Marvel seems to think we'll think she is awesome from the go and pushing Carol into the front right off.

How is this really different from any other MCU movie/character? You get your origin story movie, then you're up front as a main character. Did you also complain that Iron Man or Captain America got a single movie and then went straight to the front in Avengers?

Do you need a hug? It seems like you might need a hug. I'm sorry that not treating all characters the same has hurt you in some way as that isn't my intention. Nor was my being very brief in my initial thoughts meant to cause you some consternation. It was an ok movie and there really isn't much I that can be done about that. Perhaps it is just Marvel burn out at this point where we have seen this so many times that it just feels less engaging.

The de-aging effects on Samuel Jackson were good but it was fairly obvious on Coulson.

Just got out of the screening this morning. A VERY solid entry into the MCU. Definitely phase 3 quality which puts it above pretty much everything in phase 1 and 2.

Character interactions were good. Story was breezy. Wonderwoman felt long (but good) but this feels short while probably being as long if not longer.

They touch on a lot of the story elements of the Kree-Skrull War without showing the full on war. A couple twists I really enjoyed in plot elements.


I disagree with whoever said Alita handled the amnesia better. I think Carol had a far superior ark and that it was handled gradually and with better handled emotions, acting, and pay off.

I would rank this above any of the Iron Man clone movies including Iron Man itself. Better then dr strange, better than ant man, better then any of the other origin movies including black panther. It never followed the pattern and formula those movies all do. Winter Soldier and Civil War are still the best single movies with Infinity War close behind for scope and ambition if nothing else. Thor Ragnarok and the GotG movies are still the most fun. But this is a rock solid entry in the mix.

Hey guys, the less meta "complaining about complaining" posts we fill this thread up the better. Thank you

 motyak wrote:
Hey guys, the meta "complaining about complaining" posts we fill this thread up the better. Thank you

Is there a missing word in this sentence? Because I'm failing to understand it.

 Ahtman wrote:
Do you need a hug? It seems like you might need a hug. I'm sorry that not treating all characters the same has hurt you in some way as that isn't my intention. Nor was my being very brief in my initial thoughts meant to cause you some consternation. It was an ok movie and there really isn't much I that can be done about that. Perhaps it is just Marvel burn out at this point where we have seen this so many times that it just feels less engaging.

If it's a case of being tired of the genre that's fine, but your original complaint sounded like the same old double standard people have for female characters where it's all "they should be careful about making her more than a secondary character" and "they need to justify her powers more" and such while male characters with the exact same development path are just fine and even praised for how awesome they are.

 trexmeyer wrote:

 motyak wrote:
Hey guys, the meta "complaining about complaining" posts we fill this thread up the better. Thank you

Is there a missing word in this sentence? Because I'm failing to understand it.

The issu was modding in the morning before tea! I was asking for less of the meta complaining and have edited the original post

edit - he fixed it.

I'm working a wonky schedule right now, so I'm hoping to see it Wednesday. Both Thursday and Friday, it was sold out at my local fake IMAX, except for a few seats that no one ever wants - the one that are 4 feet from the screen in either corner. I really should have bought tickets earlier since this wasn't exactly an unpredictable event.

This movie wasn't bad. Saying it's better than Wonder Woman, Iron Man, or Black Panther? Can't say I agree there. Possibly on-par with Iron Man 3 or Thor: The Dark World. It's said this is ranked at as the 14th best marvel movie. I'd say that it feels like the proper ranking.

 cuda1179 wrote:
This movie wasn't bad. Saying it's better than Wonder Woman, Iron Man, or Black Panther? Can't say I agree there. Possibly on-par with Iron Man 3 or Thor: The Dark World. It's said this is ranked at as the 14th best marvel movie. I'd say that it feels like the proper ranking.

It's definitely better than Wonder Woman. The third act nearly ruined that film. IMO it's better than IM3, TW, CA: TA, and the Hulk movie. Probably Dr. Strange and Ant-man as well.

 trexmeyer wrote:
It's definitely better than Wonder Woman. The third act nearly ruined that film.

You're not wrong there. I've never seen such epic miscasting as they did with Ares. It was only the awesomeness of the the first 2/3rds of the movies that lets people forget that.

 cuda1179 wrote:
This movie wasn't bad. Saying it's better than Wonder Woman, Iron Man, or Black Panther? Can't say I agree there. Possibly on-par with Iron Man 3 or Thor: The Dark World.

You're saying it wasn't a bad movie, but comparing it to evenly to what are generally considered the worst movies in the MCU. I would say it's a toss up between Iron Man 2 & 3, and The Dark World, personally, in terms of being the worst.

Yeah the reverence for Wonder Woman is truly mystifying. It was notable only for being the first DC production that wasn't absolute garbage. It's a solid 7, maybe 8, at the very best. Captain Marvel beats it by more than a fair margin.

Incidentally it’s what, the second MCU origin story where the main villain isn’t just an evil version of the main hero? Thor is the other.

 AduroT wrote:
Incidentally it’s what, the second MCU origin story where the main villain isn’t just an evil version of the main hero? Thor is the other.

Dr. Strange is arguably also one (Dormamu being the real bad guy) and Spiderman (being his first solo film) and GotG (Since there is no evil team they fight).

My wife and I just got back from watching marvel and we both thought it was really good. Brie Larson was much, much more likeable on screen in full length conversations than in 2-second blips in the trailer (as expected by anyone with half a brain). Her Carol Danvers is very much Tony Stark-meets Cpt. America.

I did think the cgi in a couple of spots had trouble making faces "work" namely with Agent Coulson in spots, and also during at least one spot in her "powered up" scene, but those are very minor gripes.

Overall a pretty strong movie, easily above IM3 and the pre-Ragnorok Thor's. Those both had some sweet parts, but in general as a whole movie Cpt. Marvel was better. It had some really obvious plot points, but that's more due to me being a 37 year old who has watched way too many movies of this type. Didn't stop it from having several really awesome points, though.

I for one am eager to see her get into a dust-up with Thanos, because that fight's going to be epic.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Yeah the reverence for Wonder Woman is truly mystifying. It was notable only for being the first DC production that wasn't absolute garbage. It's a solid 7, maybe 8, at the very best. Captain Marvel beats it by more than a fair margin.

In all fairness, professional critics disagree with you. On rotten tomatoes the professional critic review of Wonder Woman is 93%, compared to Captain Marvel's 79%. That's mirrored in the fan reviews with 88% and 53%.

And to be fair, Wonder Woman was the 4th DCU film. The first 4 MCU films were Iron Man, Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Thor. Two of those movies are panned as complete trash, Iron man was goodish (although somewhat trashed in this very thread), and Thor was passable, kind-of.

I think part of it is Wonder Woman has been part of pop culture for a long time, even for people like me who don't read comics, I had never heard of Captain Marvel before the hoopla about this. Honestly I would have rather seen a movie about Scarlet Witch because I think Elizabeth Olsen is a much better actress.

Well Scarlett witch is getting a TV show with the Vision on Disney Plus. So there is that.

 Lance845 wrote:
Well Scarlett witch is getting a TV show with the Vision on Disney Plus. So there is that.

Its not that I don't like Brie Larson, I loved Freefire and Kong. Hated Scott Pilgrim though.

 cuda1179 wrote:
The first 4 MCU films were Iron Man, Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Thor. Two of those movies are panned as complete trash, Iron man was goodish (although somewhat trashed in this very thread), and Thor was passable, kind-of.

While the events of the two Hulk films are (as far as I know) canon, I don't think nearly anyone considers them to be MCU films. The first one predates the MCU by 5 years, and the second one is a Universal Pictures movie. The first movie under the MCU banner was Iron Man in 2008.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Yeah the reverence for Wonder Woman is truly mystifying. It was notable only for being the first DC production that wasn't absolute garbage. It's a solid 7, maybe 8, at the very best. Captain Marvel beats it by more than a fair margin.

In all fairness, professional critics disagree with you. On rotten tomatoes the professional critic review of Wonder Woman is 93%, compared to Captain Marvel's 79%. That's mirrored in the fan reviews with 88% and 53%.

And to be fair, Wonder Woman was the 4th DCU film. The first 4 MCU films were Iron Man, Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Thor. Two of those movies are panned as complete trash, Iron man was goodish (although somewhat trashed in this very thread), and Thor was passable, kind-of.

Black Panther has 97%, Infinity War has an 83%. I don't think critics are spot on by any means. If Captain Marvel had come out first it would have been more of a "go women" event and gotten more of a pass on reviews.

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
The first 4 MCU films were Iron Man, Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Thor. Two of those movies are panned as complete trash, Iron man was goodish (although somewhat trashed in this very thread), and Thor was passable, kind-of.

While the events of the two Hulk films are (as far as I know) canon, I don't think nearly anyone considers them to be MCU films. The first one predates the MCU by 5 years, and the second one is a Universal Pictures movie. The first movie under the MCU banner was Iron Man in 2008.

There is only one Hulk movie that is part of the MCU. It's the one with Thunderbolt Ross, Nick Fury, and Tony Stark in it.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

 Ouze wrote:
Oh yeah, I forgot about that.

Also it was part of this phase 1 box set.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Yeah the reverence for Wonder Woman is truly mystifying. It was notable only for being the first DC production that wasn't absolute garbage. It's a solid 7, maybe 8, at the very best. Captain Marvel beats it by more than a fair margin.

In all fairness, professional critics disagree with you. On rotten tomatoes the professional critic review of Wonder Woman is 93%, compared to Captain Marvel's 79%. That's mirrored in the fan reviews with 88% and 53%.

And to be fair, Wonder Woman was the 4th DCU film. The first 4 MCU films were Iron Man, Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Thor. Two of those movies are panned as complete trash, Iron man was goodish (although somewhat trashed in this very thread), and Thor was passable, kind-of.

You know what else professional film critics reviewed very well? Last Jedi.

Yeah.

Audience score comparison for these films is also of dubious value with all the controversy and political bs surrounding Captain Marvel. There has definitely been an attempt to torpedo this movie before it even came out.

 creeping-deth87 wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

 creeping-deth87 wrote:
Yeah the reverence for Wonder Woman is truly mystifying. It was notable only for being the first DC production that wasn't absolute garbage. It's a solid 7, maybe 8, at the very best. Captain Marvel beats it by more than a fair margin.

In all fairness, professional critics disagree with you. On rotten tomatoes the professional critic review of Wonder Woman is 93%, compared to Captain Marvel's 79%. That's mirrored in the fan reviews with 88% and 53%.

And to be fair, Wonder Woman was the 4th DCU film. The first 4 MCU films were Iron Man, Hulk, Iron Man 2, and Thor. Two of those movies are panned as complete trash, Iron man was goodish (although somewhat trashed in this very thread), and Thor was passable, kind-of.

You know what else professional film critics reviewed very well? Last Jedi.

Yeah.

Audience score comparison for these films is also of dubious value with all the controversy and political bs surrounding Captain Marvel. There has definitely been an attempt to torpedo this movie before it even came out.

I can believe that, but again, the character is not well known outside of comics circles.

 thekingofkings wrote:
I can believe that, but again, the character is not well known outside of comics circles.

How many of the MCU were before their respective films? Spiderman and Hulk obviously. Maybe Captain America because of the 90s effort.

EDIT - Box Office predictions are £150M+

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4492&p=.htm

Cinema Score is A

https://www.cinemascore.com/

By any measurable criteria, the film is not falling on it's face (yet)

 AduroT wrote:
Incidentally it’s what, the second MCU origin story where the main villain isn’t just an evil version of the main hero? Thor is the other.

Which is a nice touch. Marvel has a lot of parallelism in their stories (comics, movies, whatever), so avoiding that is always a nice touch. Not to say Carol doesn't have her fair share of not-Ms. Marvels. Just wait 'til they do Moonstone!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I know Samuel L Jackson has aged brilliantly. But I didn’t even notice it.

Throughout his career Sam Jackson has morphed into various looking people, so him looking younger isn't all that weird as he can often change his appearance quite a bit.

 Peregrine wrote:
Did you also complain that Iron Man or Captain America got a single movie and then went straight to the front in Avengers?

Iron Man got 2 movies.

 Ouze wrote:
While the events of the two Hulk films are (as far as I know) canon, I don't think nearly anyone considers them to be MCU films. The first one predates the MCU by 5 years, and the second one is a Universal Pictures movie. The first movie under the MCU banner was Iron Man in 2008.

Ang Lee's Hulk is not part of the MCU.

The Incredible Hulk is, and it came out after Iron Man, and Tony Stark was in it, and Thaddeus 'Thunderbolt' Ross even came back for Civil War and Infinity War.

Time for more in-depth thoughts.

Overall, as said, a cracking film. Plot is good, action is spiffy. They do a bang up job of explaining not so much Captain Marvel, but Carol Danvers, the woman behind the powers. And in a complete surprise to no-one, it’s not ‘evil feminist propaganda’.

Lots of Easter eggs for those who’ve followed the films, including cameos from a certain villain-to-be.

Comedy was good, in particular



Only thing I think of as a drawback is the music. Whilst all classics, and very much my music from that era, it felt a bit more DCMU than the dab hand we saw in GotG. But that’s a relatively minor quibble.

If nothing else, it serves as a reminder that the MCU hasn’t disappeared up its own bum, getting ever more convoluted. It slots in nicely, and as ever you don’t really need to have seen any of the others to make sense of what’s going on, or who is who. 21 films in, that remains quite the achievement.

Ranking it? Hard to say, as I’ve never really ranked the others. It impressed me more than Dr Strange, but didn’t have quite the zip of GotG.

In summary? It ain’t perfect, but it’s still a worthy watch, and I can’t really imagine anyone feeling shortchanged or ripped off,


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and villains?

 AduroT wrote:
Incidentally it’s what, the second MCU origin story where the main villain isn’t just an evil version of the main hero? Thor is the other.

This is something which went wrong big way in Iron Man movies. They just could not come up with a storyline or villain which had nothing to do with the damn suit. Always suit suit suit more Ironman suits, hey lets give everyone their own suits. Yawn.

That does suit Stark though.

Remember why he became Iron Man in the first place. Him trying to ensure that sort of tech remains only in ‘safe’ hands makes sense.

Arguably, of all The Avengers, he’s the easiest for villains to replicate, if they can just get their hands on a sample of his wares. And for that, he’s arguably the biggest threat to world stability. If he blobs it, that’s a lot of soldiers becoming an incredible threat.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
That does suit Stark though.

Remember why he became Iron Man in the first place. Him trying to ensure that sort of tech remains only in ‘safe’ hands makes sense.

It's good plotline for ONE movie. When you can't come up with anything else, it devalues the character. It's big reason why the Iron Man franchise went down the drain.
It was hilarious how Stark claimed in the beginning of IM2 that others can't replicate the suit, even though it was already done in the previous movie, and then he was proven wrong almost immediately. Later he himself started handing them out like candy. Sense of marvel (lol) disappears when everybody's grandmom has an Iron Man suit.

At the risk of derailing...Warmonger had the same power source, and access to the original suit, which helped immensely.

Whiplash had access to the ARC schematics, which again helped. All the other examples in IM2 were deliberately laughable.


And in IM3, it’s a very different villain (if not actually a good one. Guy Pearce will always be Mike From Neighbours to me!)

It’s also fairly classic allegory. Sure, they’ve got these super powers, but what’s stopping them becoming Benevolent Dictators? The mirror enemy shows it’s the hero, not their powers, that’s important.

It’s not the most original trope, sure. But then, it’s working well for Marvel, and if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

so Stan Lee...

Yup!

.. nice.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

It’s not the most original trope, sure. But then, it’s working well for Marvel, and if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

But it didn't work, that's the point! IM2 and 3 were panned and quite rightly.

If you read the IM comics, is the every storyline somehow tied to armour? No. Most of the time IM is simply a superhero whose suit is an enabler of his abilities, not focus of the story.

Backfire wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

It’s not the most original trope, sure. But then, it’s working well for Marvel, and if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

But it didn't work, that's the point! IM2 and 3 were panned and quite rightly.

If you read the IM comics, is the every storyline somehow tied to armour? No. Most of the time IM is simply a superhero whose suit is an enabler of his abilities, not focus of the story.

Marvel Phase 1 and most of 2 were basically run by Ike Pearlmutter who is notoriously cheap and a bad dude. When Ironman worked he more or less demanded that Kevin follow the IM format over and over. It wasn't until Kevin went to Disney and was like, let me answer to you instead of him and the Marvel Council or they are going to sink this ship that the second half of phase 2 and phase 3 got way better.

Apparently it's at $455,000,000~ worldwide already so if that's the case I think $1 billion+ is pretty much a lock.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Do you need a hug? It seems like you might need a hug. I'm sorry that not treating all characters the same has hurt you in some way as that isn't my intention. Nor was my being very brief in my initial thoughts meant to cause you some consternation. It was an ok movie and there really isn't much I that can be done about that. Perhaps it is just Marvel burn out at this point where we have seen this so many times that it just feels less engaging.

If it's a case of being tired of the genre that's fine, but your original complaint sounded like the same old double standard people have for female characters where it's all "they should be careful about making her more than a secondary character" and "they need to justify her powers more" and such while male characters with the exact same development path are just fine and even praised for how awesome they are.

I know there was a lot of goofiness projected at the film and generally tried to avoid it so didn't know that was a complaint being leveled at it. Thinking about it a bit more maybe a better way to put it would be that she seemed better when interacting with others so perhaps she'll shine even more in a group like the Avengers. I would still recommend people to see it as it is worth it even if it isn't everyone's favorite MCU movie. Someone above said they didn't like Ant-Man or Dr. Strange that much but really liked this whereas I felt the opposite. Admittedly a lot what I liked about Dr. Strange was the awesome 3D and trippy visuals they were able to pull off.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Do you need a hug? It seems like you might need a hug. I'm sorry that not treating all characters the same has hurt you in some way as that isn't my intention. Nor was my being very brief in my initial thoughts meant to cause you some consternation. It was an ok movie and there really isn't much I that can be done about that. Perhaps it is just Marvel burn out at this point where we have seen this so many times that it just feels less engaging.

If it's a case of being tired of the genre that's fine, but your original complaint sounded like the same old double standard people have for female characters where it's all "they should be careful about making her more than a secondary character" and "they need to justify her powers more" and such while male characters with the exact same development path are just fine and even praised for how awesome they are.

I know there was a lot of goofiness projected at the film and generally tried to avoid it so didn't know that was a complaint being leveled at it. Thinking about it a bit more maybe a better way to put it would be that she seemed better when interacting with others so perhaps she'll shine even more in a group like the Avengers. I would still recommend people to see it as it is worth it even if it isn't everyone's favorite MCU movie. Someone above said they didn't like Ant-Man or Dr. Strange that much but really liked this whereas I felt the opposite. Admittedly a lot what I liked about Dr. Strange was the awesome 3D and trippy visuals they were able to pull off.

Spoiler:

Talking to someone else (in real life even) it could also be that she seemed boring sometimes because initially she didn't really have a personality as she didn't have a memory and was being a puppet of the Kree.

I also did like how the Skrulls were changed and portrayed in this. I imagine some hardcore comic fans may not like it but I think they did a good job with making the MCU Skrulls different than the comic book counterparts.

I’m actually genuinely interested to see how the other Avengers cope with her on the team.

In terms of morality, she seems closest to Cap. But there’s still a significant age gap - and how much passed between his Deep Freeze and Carol’s ascendce?

In terms of power, it’s pretty much Thor and Vision.

Personality? Arguably closer to Tony Stark (in so far as neither has particularly taken ‘no, you can’t’ as an answer, and have instead done their own thing.

Much as I really enjoyed Captain Marvel, that for me is the real litmus test, as it is with anyone joining The Avengers.

If she’s just a power hammer to Thanos’ crotch - entertaining of course, but a narrative cop out (which is nothing to do with gender, in case anyone on either side was wondering). But if her powers don’t play a clear role, what’s the point?

I for one am confident enough that the MCU knows exactly what they’re doing, and we’ll get a great result. But then, I’ve also been waiting for that bubble to burst since 0.000000001 seconds before I saw Guardians of the Galaxy at a press screening - and every film since.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’m actually genuinely interested to see how the other Avengers cope with her on the team.

In terms of morality, she seems closest to Cap. But there’s still a significant age gap - and how much passed between his Deep Freeze and Carol’s ascendce?

In terms of power, it’s pretty much Thor and Vision.

Personality? Arguably closer to Tony Stark (in so far as neither has particularly taken ‘no, you can’t’ as an answer, and have instead done their own thing.

Much as I really enjoyed Captain Marvel, that for me is the real litmus test, as it is with anyone joining The Avengers.

If she’s just a power hammer to Thanos’ crotch - entertaining of course, but a narrative cop out (which is nothing to do with gender, in case anyone on either side was wondering). But if her powers don’t play a clear role, what’s the point?

I for one am confident enough that the MCU knows exactly what they’re doing, and we’ll get a great result. But then, I’ve also been waiting for that bubble to burst since 0.000000001 seconds before I saw Guardians of the Galaxy at a press screening - and every film since.

It's interesting. That's CLOSE to Thor and Vision, but NOT Thor or Vision. While her training both on Earth and with the Kree gives her a blunt instrument methodology to go to blows with Thanos, Thanos with all the gems should still be out classing all of them. And arguably, if Thanos has all the Gems and is aware of Thor coming it's not going to be a beam of rainbow energy he shoots at Thor next time. It will be turning him to cubes, or a slinky, or glass or chucking a moon at him. I wonder how much Thanos we will even get in End Game.

I really am looking forward to seeing her interact with the others in Endgame. Larson definitely sold herself as the character in a vacuum, and in what I feel is definitely one of the more character-led Marvel outings, but I think the way they've pitched her personality should fill an interesting niche in the team. She's got the wit to match Stark, a hint of Cap's idealism and stoicism, but is also potentially far more outwardly emotional than either of them, which could be a help or a hindrance depending on the circumstance.

After the events of CM, I can't see her doing particularly well at taking orders either, so I'd not be surprised if for a good chunk of Endgame she's a bit of a loose cannon. Is she going to have the patience for Cap and Stark to sit around debating ethics (something I'm pretty sure is coming is a confrontation between them about what to do after they beat Thanos. I can totally see Stark wanting to use the Gauntlet to try and make the world his version of better, while Cap will insist on putting it all back how it was), or will she just go straight for the direct approach?

All that said, it's entirely possible she'll be a totally different personality in Endgame. 20 years, and presumably an extended dustup with the Kree during that time (I imagine any sequel will cover this, rather than jumping to the present),could have changed her a great deal.

As for power levels, I think one of the most significant things is



A few random thoughts on CM itself.


All in all, a really solid entry, and I can't wait to see more of the character. Between her, T'Challa, Strange and Spidey, they've got a strong (if somewhat unconventional) future iteration of the main lineup coming together now.

Rotten Tomatoes is posting that it made $153mm over the weekend. Thats a lot of hamberders!

$455,000,000 including international tickets. Allegedly.

Few sources claiming it though, but where such sources get their sources, I've absolutely no idea!

Still, a cracking performance! And I think I hear the soft crying of MRA's....I think it's coming from 4chan

Saw it. Can't say I liked it, but can't say I didn't like it either. It seems to sit in the bog standard Marvel origin movie category. Maybe it's just superhero boredom setting in, but I feel like I've seen the same movie 5 or 6 times previously.

 Frazzled wrote:
Rotten Tomatoes is posting that it made $153mm over the weekend. Thats a lot of hamberders!

Huh. Not bad for what was predicted to be "the lowest grossing marvel movie to date" if I recall.

Predicted by whom? I completely missed that stuff.

Saw it on Friday. I enjoyed it more than Thor or Dr Strange's first outings, and if the CGI had iffy moments, I wasn't sufficiently uninterested to notice them.

I admit, I was half expecting the cat to turn out to be .


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How does the timing work out between this film and Peter Quill being picked up from Earth? And the main body of GotG? By the time of that film, the Kree have apparently ended a war with Xandar (were they fighting them at the same time as the Skrulls?) and disavowed Ronon and Korath, yes?

Another thing I forgot to mention....




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:


How does the timing work out between this film and Peter Quill being picked up from Earth? And the main body of GotG? By the time of that film, the Kree have apparently ended a war with Xandar (were they fighting them at the same time as the Skrulls?) and disavowed Ronon and Korath, yes?

Quill was picked up in the late 80's/early 90's if memory serves? Pretty sure he's canonically around the same age as I am (38). 1988, according to a source I can't be bothered to particularly verify.

Seems the Kree/Xandar war likely kicked off

I saw it with my wife and daughters yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it. I'd easily place it in the top third of the the 21(!) MCU movies so far. Even my wife, who is not at all into comic book movies, enjoyed it.

 Peregrine wrote:

If it's a case of being tired of the genre that's fine, but your original complaint sounded like the same old double standard people have for female characters where it's all "they should be careful about making her more than a secondary character" and "they need to justify her powers more" and such while male characters with the exact same development path are just fine and even praised for how awesome they are.

While I am at agreement, I also think that Avengers: Endgame should be mostly about original Avengers and all their newer allies (Rocket, Okoye, Cpt Marvel) should play smaller role. What the characters deserve and I believe audience wants, is a proper closure and sendoff for the old core Avengers.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Another thing I forgot to mention....

Spoiler:

I for one found it a nice touch that the Kree Ships all resembled Ronan's ship in GotG. It's nice to have that consistent design language - though it did make the shooting down of Mar-Vell a bit obvious to those of us who could tell a mile off 'that's a Kree ship...'.

Just a little touch which could've been left out.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:


How does the timing work out between this film and Peter Quill being picked up from Earth? And the main body of GotG? By the time of that film, the Kree have apparently ended a war with Xandar (were they fighting them at the same time as the Skrulls?) and disavowed Ronon and Korath, yes?

Quill was picked up in the late 80's/early 90's if memory serves? Pretty sure he's canonically around the same age as I am (38). 1988, according to a source I can't be bothered to particularly verify.

Seems the Kree/Xandar war likely kicked off

Spoiler:

because the Skrull got away, so the Kree needed a new whipping boy. Which, again, sailing close to politics, is something we've seen on earth, where nations always seem to need a bogeyman of some kind

So, Peter is picked up around the same time as Carol is recruited by the Kree. Give or take a couple of years either way. If the sequel is Carol vs Ronanover the fate of the Skrulls, there's room for some GotG easter eggs. Hopefully just the odd thing in the background, and not some cheesy crossover moment, though.

Yup. More or less.

Though I suspect we may see some of the other Ravagers come into play. Would be nice to see Sly Stallone actually in action!

They subtly implied that the kree were busy with the kree skrull war in gotg.

The kree empire doesnt disavow ronan. They just tell xandar that they didnt tell him to do that so hes not their problem. If ronan was successful he probably would have gotten some acolades.

Hmm; on the subject of the Kree, the Skrulls and Xandar ...

As mentioned, many Marvel films use a doppleganger of the hero as the main villain. This is to represent the hero "overcoming themselves" to be a hero. This movie also understands that a hero must overcome themselves to be a hero, but goes about it in a very different way. Her battle is to overcome her Kree programming and remember who she really is. It is the same "heroic Journey" but done internally instead of externally. Clever of Marvel to re-use/re-think their own origin cliche and do it differently.

I would like to say that I was completely wrong about my theory of Marr Vell (though i still think that would have been good). However what they did do was pretty good.

I'm definitely a little worried about how she's going to be integrated into Endgame. I don't know if the rumours that she was shoe-horned in by Disney are hogwash or not, but if they're true that absolutely makes me a little skittish about that film. I have faith in the Russo brothers but there's only so much a director can do when the studio meddles. Case in point, Avengers vs. Avengers: Age of Ultron. One of those was easily among the best the MCU had to offer, while the other I would put really far down the list. Same director, wildly different outcome in terms of narrative satisfaction. At least for me anyway, can't speak for other MCU fans.

Of course her being shoehorned in is hogwash.

Mid-credits, full movie. Then Endgame.

That’s not a shoehorn.

I don't really have a problem with Ultron. Thor's vision quest is definitely not a good part of it, but its a pretty small diversion in a film that otherwise works for me. Plenty to like; Hulkbuster fight, the Mjolnir sequences, the focus on rescuing people. Lots to like as far as I'm concerned.

Just got back from CM. Really enjoyed it. One of the better solo origin films. Felt like its own thing rather than a retread of Iron Man and overall left me feeling like I'd seen something less disposable than Ant Man or Strange. Little too much CG at the end, but mostly because so much of the film was built on character dynamics over action beats. Good stuff, I'd have to put some thought into where I'd put it in the pack. The top 10 is getting cluttered.

I hope that the sequel is set long before the "current" timeline of the MCU, and shows us more of the Kree/Skrull/Xandar stuff.

Then the third film can be post Endgame with her on Earth finally and having to seek help to deal with all she's been through, perhaps even turning to one doctor Karla Sofen for support.

 Ouze wrote:
Huh. Not bad for what was predicted to be "the lowest grossing marvel movie to date" if I recall.

No one in the film industry made such a claim.

I don't know if it beat the official projections, but the idea that it's projections were anything other than stellar doesn't seem to track for me.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And I think I hear the soft crying of MRA's....I think it's coming from 4chan

And I think labelling people who didn't like the film as "MRAs" is extremely unhelpful.

And by 'shoehorned' I think he meant that she shows up and solves every problem instantly because she's basically invulnerable and unstoppable by the end of her own film. If she does a Superman at the end of Justice League, she'll rob the film of any pacing/stakes.

We don't want a "This guy still bothering you?" moment ala Superman's curbstomp of Steppenwolf.

Its possible that he strips her of much of her power on account of having the Infinity stone that her power is tied to.

Or the stones just don’t have the power they did. They appear very damaged post snap.

I don’t think her power level really matters that much though. The snap isn’t a problem that’s likely to be solved by brute force. Even then Thanos is on par with Darkseid, not Steppenwulf. Had JL2 happened Supes could have had a worthy foe.

Quite enjoyed it. Probably makes the top half at least, sitting around the Dr. Strange/Black Panther level.

I do agree with the sentiment that it will need to be a delicate balance to fit her into Endgame. The strength of the MCU is that it has been a slowly built ensemble, and chucking in an extremely powerful character during the finale seems like it could easily end up either coming across as a deus ex machina, or jobbing.

For me avengers 1 and 2 are two of the WORST the mcu has to offer, equally. And its the director/writers fault. Joss wheddon is an over rated hack who can write snappy dialog and thats about it. Those characters are never more one dimensional then when they were in those movies.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I hope that the sequel is set long before the "current" timeline of the MCU, and shows us more of the Kree/Skrull/Xandar stuff.

Then the third film can be post Endgame with her on Earth finally and having to seek help to deal with all she's been through, perhaps even turning to one doctor Karla Sofen for support.

This would be awesome.

And by 'shoehorned' I think he meant that she shows up and solves every problem instantly because she's basically invulnerable and unstoppable by the end of her own film. If she does a Superman at the end of Justice League, she'll rob the film of any pacing/stakes.

We don't want a "This guy still bothering you?" moment ala Superman's curbstomp of Steppenwolf.

Bingo.

Shes not invulnerable and unstoppable any more than Thor is. She just so happened to be fighting people she greatly outclassed. The kree are tough and strong compared to humans but so is Groot and every other alien race.

She was fighting what amounted to regular people. If she got into a fight with say... Hela. Well i don't think she would have fared any better then thor. And i imagine her photon blasts would get turned into something awful and thrown back at her just like dr stranges magic.

Carol fighting the Kree is like Thor rocking up at the beginning or Thor 2 and just smashing some dudes. We haven't seen anything that makes her out to be like DCEU supes on any level.

Saw it today, and really enjoyed it, even if I'm a bit origin-movie'd out. There was a nice buddy-cop dynamic, some bits that really made me laugh (the Nerf gun!), and some clever stuff with the storytelling. One scene that stood out for me was

 Ouze wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
It's definitely better than Wonder Woman. The third act nearly ruined that film.

You're not wrong there. I've never seen such epic miscasting as they did with Ares. It was only the awesomeness of the the first 2/3rds of the movies that lets people forget that.

I remember when The Mummy Returns came out, people were disappointed that we had a big CGI monster in the final battle, instead of Dwayne Johnson kicking ass. WW kind of had the opposite problem.

 Elemental wrote:

Spoiler:

the final confrontation in the desert. It's an empowering "hell yeah!" moment, of course but it also avoids an anticlimax after she solos a battleship, it's an entirely logical thing for him to try (play on her pride so that he has a chance in the confrontation), and it makes a nice capstone to her emotional arc. It's a neat and elegant bit of storytelling.

Probably my favorite serious moment from the film. It's the only way that the guy stood a chance, and they both know it.

Wonder Woman really deserved a more poetic “they do it to themselves “ ending. They tried to have it both ways but I’d rather have Ares be the broken old man version who humanity has outgrown.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Huh. Not bad for what was predicted to be "the lowest grossing marvel movie to date" if I recall.

No one in the film industry made such a claim.

Nor did I claim they did.

 adamsouza wrote:
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!

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:
I do agree with the sentiment that it will need to be a delicate balance to fit her into Endgame. The strength of the MCU is that it has been a slowly built ensemble, and chucking in an extremely powerful character during the finale seems like it could easily end up either coming across as a deus ex machina, or jobbing.

Yes, I thought it would be cool to have her come out of left field and wreck Thanos, at least when they first started talking about how she would be the most powerful character in the MCU or what have you. Over time though I started thinking that was actually sort of lame, that they spent all this time building up an epic conflict - pulling her out of a hat like a rabbit cheapens a lot of what came before. But who knows if that is what happens at all. We'll see in 2 months or whatever.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And I think labelling people who didn't like the film as "MRAs" is extremely unhelpful.

Nobody is doing that. Just like with TLJ, there are valid reasons to dislike the movie and nobody is going to label you an MRA for them. For example, "origin story fatigue" is a legitimate reason to criticize the movie. Concerns over how adding a major (and powerful) new character at the last second in a two-part movie will work are legitimate. But let's not pretend that there weren't MRAs whining about stuff like "it's not realistic to have women beating men in combat" or "SHES A FEMINAZI SJW THIS WILL RUIN MARVEL". 4chan/incels/etc exist, whether we like it or not, and it is entirely fair to laugh at how absurd their claims look now that the box office numbers are coming in.

Inquisitor Gideon wrote:Saw it. Can't say I liked it, but can't say I didn't like it either. It seems to sit in the bog standard Marvel origin movie category. Maybe it's just superhero boredom setting in, but I feel like I've seen the same movie 5 or 6 times previously.

I think too many people walked into this thinking this film was going to be lifechanging, either good or bad, but on that level regardless. THAT is what is leading to the "meh" reviews more than anything, I think.

Lance845 wrote:For me avengers 1 and 2 are two of the WORST the mcu has to offer, equally. And its the director/writers fault. Joss wheddon is an over rated hack who can write snappy dialog and thats about it. Those characters are never more one dimensional then when they were in those movies.

Anybody notice that the only time MCU Hawkeye actually acts like Hawkeye is in the non-Whedon films? Yeah, mark me as someone who would actually love to see the JL movie that has Whedon's stuff taken out and be able to watch it like Snyder intended.

A.) How is Hawkeye Supposed to act?

2.) You wanted Cyborg to be killed?

 AduroT wrote:
A.) How is Hawkeye Supposed to act?

2.) You wanted Cyborg to be killed?

A. Like Hawkeye. Civil War and Thor had him actually acting like Hawkeye whereas the two Avengers movie could have seen him swapped out with literally ANY powerless Avenger and nothing would have seemed out of place. Try it. Just replace every mention of Hawkeye with The Swordsman and see if anything goes wrong.

2. Whedon changed FAR more than that.

edited by ingtaer.

So, again, how Does Hawkeye act? Saying he acts like Hawkeye isn’t an answer, because if it is, then Hawkeye acted like Hawkeye in Avengers since that’s how Hawkeye acted.

Wow.

Lets assume you've read a single comic starring Hawkeye in your life. How did he act in those? A wiseass who had a sarcastic bend while also being overly cocky, but able to back it up for the most part.

Avengers and Avengers 2 Hawkey? Morose, when not completely dry. Watching his behavior in Civil War is more in line with how the character should be portrayed.

I honestly don't see how this is so hard for you to get, unless you're being argumentative solely for the sake of being argumentative.

 Lance845 wrote:
For me avengers 1 and 2 are two of the WORST the mcu has to offer, equally. And its the director/writers fault. Joss wheddon is an over rated hack who can write snappy dialog and thats about it. Those characters are never more one dimensional then when they were in those movies.

Well, Hawkeye was mind controlled over much of the Avengers 1. Also, Avengers movies have big casts and that inevitably means that individual characters are not going to get much screentime.
But that said, I do think that Whedon screwed up Avengers 2. First, it repeats by now tired theme where heroes create the villain. This is cool trope used in moderation (and to some extent it leads to Civil War) but it makes the villain and heroes seem less when they are tied together. Sort of a Skywalker effect, if you will. Especially as Stark seems to almost completely ignore his irresponsible decisions which created Ultron.

But bigger problem is that Ultron just does not work. He is not scary. His repeats are easily disposable targets. He talks WAY too much. This is something where Whedon has failed before. He is great at writing dialogue, great at coming up with plot twists and character moments, but not always too good at writing villains. Ultron was similar to The First from last season of Buffy, he talked too much and was overexposed. We were assured he was super-evil and scary, but did not come across that way. Those characters simply came up as tiresome towards the end.

AduroT wrote:So, again, how Does Hawkeye act? Saying he acts like Hawkeye isn’t an answer, because if it is, then Hawkeye acted like Hawkeye in Avengers since that’s how Hawkeye acted.

Hawkeye, more then any other character that has ever been in the Avengers, BELIEVES in the Avengers. There is a single throw away line in Age of Ultron when he's talking to his wife that implies it, but it really comes out in his moments in Civil War. Though I will give the speach he gives Scarlett whitch in Ultron credit where credit is due. But again, it's wheddon's dialog writing. But heres the thing about that dialog writing, remove hawkeye from the scene and put captain america there. That line could have been delivered by him too. Put Iron man there. Tony could have also given that speech. Civil War shows that in the hands of better directors and with better writing the characters can maintain their depth of character and their unique voice without being turned into sound bites.

Backfire wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
For me avengers 1 and 2 are two of the WORST the mcu has to offer, equally. And its the director/writers fault. Joss wheddon is an over rated hack who can write snappy dialog and thats about it. Those characters are never more one dimensional then when they were in those movies.

Well, Hawkeye was mind controlled over much of the Avengers 1. Also, Avengers movies have big casts and that inevitably means that individual characters are not going to get much screentime.
But that said, I do think that Whedon screwed up Avengers 2. First, it repeats by now tired theme where heroes create the villain. This is cool trope used in moderation (and to some extent it leads to Civil War) but it makes the villain and heroes seem less when they are tied together. Sort of a Skywalker effect, if you will. Especially as Stark seems to almost completely ignore his irresponsible decisions which created Ultron.

But bigger problem is that Ultron just does not work. He is not scary. His repeats are easily disposable targets. He talks WAY too much. This is something where Whedon has failed before. He is great at writing dialogue, great at coming up with plot twists and character moments, but not always too good at writing villains. Ultron was similar to The First from last season of Buffy, he talked too much and was overexposed. We were assured he was super-evil and scary, but did not come across that way. Those characters simply came up as tiresome towards the end.

Let's ignore the large casts are hard bit. And the screen time bit. Civil War, Infinity War, Oceans 11, Lock Stock and 2 Smoking Barrels, Pulp Fiction... fething lots of movies have a cast that is more then a single protagonist, their love interest, and a villain. And all those movies manage to make each character a whole character without those issues.

Wheddon likes to define each of his characters by a single personality trait which defines their every action. Anything more complex then that and they fall apart. For instance, Loki in A1. Seriously, what the feth was his plan? He has never been less intelligent in what he was doing then in that movie. We all explain it away as a plot to get back to Asgaurd but thats just us connecting the dots after the fact. Nothing in any movie ever actually says that and Thor the Dark World more or less counters it. Do you remember A1 at all? The character with the most depth was the hulk, and thats because Banner was 1 thing and the hulk was another 1 thing so unlike every other character he got to be 2 things. Look at Captain America in his own movies and then look at him in both of the Avengers movies. He just stands around and watches things happening around him until a moment arrives for him to give the others orders and then hit a bad guy in front of him with his shield. Now go rewatch ANY Captain America movie. When is Cap not stepping in front of the actions of others who are about to do wrong? He's a ACTIVE force in all of those movies but he needs Stark to tell him Shield is hiding something in A1? Pick ANY of the characters from A1. What was their character ark in that movie? Nobody had one. They were just there while the events unfolded and nobody learned anything or grew in any capacity in that movie. It took OTHER movies to show you what happened to these characters as a result of that movies events.

But in Civil war wanda and vision have a ark. Cap has one. Tony has one. BP has one. You get all of Nemos story unfolded before you. BW goes through some changes. Warmachine gets a little story in there. Civil war manages to have more depth with characters both new and old, central and not. What exactly was Joss doing in A1/2?

On shows like Firefly Wheddon is not writing alone and that writing staff gave those characters more depth. But then Wheddon alone writes the Serenity movie and suddenly everyone is reduced to single character trait sound bits. Serenity is the worst episode of Firefly. Wheddon sucks.

Whedon is a creeper as well as being a hack. I'll never understand the love for Buffy.
Avengers doesn't hold up as well as other MCU movies on rewatch.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Whedon is a creeper as well as being a hack. I'll never understand the love for Buffy.
Avengers doesn't hold up as well as other MCU movies on rewatch.

He made Firefly y'know...

topaxygouroun i wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Whedon is a creeper as well as being a hack. I'll never understand the love for Buffy.
Avengers doesn't hold up as well as other MCU movies on rewatch.

He made Firefly y'know...

No. He conceptualized Firefly. A great cast of actors and a writing staff made firefly. Don't give that dumpy idiot all of their credit.

People in this thread like Snyder and dump on Whedon. Well, I guess it’s true what they say about bad opinions. Whedon’s super hero movies crushed it at the box office. Snyder’s generally sucked. It’s not hard for me to see which one is more appreciated by the general public and why.

Saw it last night and really enjoyed it.

Loved how they handled her origin and where she got her powers from - nice call back to the comics without being overly complicated.

Loved the 'twists' too - they were twitsy enough to be entertaining without being too Shyamalanian in nature, if you know what I mean!

I know what you mean. I love a twist, but not when it's an Agatha Christie 'there is no way the reader/viewer could've possibly guessed, because it's based entirely upon evidence not mentioned anywhere else within the story'.

Don't mind being wrong in my guesses, but man. That's just cheap!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and just another thought. Which I'll put in spoiler tags.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
People in this thread like Snyder and dump on Whedon. Well, I guess it’s true what they say about bad opinions. Whedon’s super hero movies crushed it at the box office. Snyder’s generally sucked. It’s not hard for me to see which one is more appreciated by the general public and why.

I didnt say i liked snyders dceu movies (watchmen was good). Box office success does not equal quality. Transformers movies are all wildly profitable except bumblebee, the only good one.

 Alpharius wrote:
Saw it last night and really enjoyed it.

Loved how they handled her origin and where she got her powers from - nice call back to the comics without being overly complicated.

Loved the 'twists' too - they were twitsy enough to be entertaining without being too Shyamalanian in nature, if you know what I mean!

Just because I've been waiting for an opportunity to post this:



but, yes, it was all well done.

A1 is a pretty great film and at its time unprecedented. I don't take any issue with the reality that since then, the Russo brothers have done better.

The only unprecedented thing about it was having so many movies before it build up to it.

Mystery Men was a team super hero movie that handled its characters way better. A1 taken on its own as a film is remarkable for nothing. Its a fun movie sure. Its not flat out BAD because none of the marvel movies are actually just flat out bad. But it doesnt deserve any accolades for ground breaking things it didnt do. And in every place where it falls short it does so in the ways joss is known for.

As another comparison, joss wrote alien ressurection. The movie where one character was the wheel chair guy, and one was the black guy, and one was the pilot, and one was the gruff jerk, and ripley was a strong female lead because she had super powers...

It was what if buffy was aliens.

 Lance845 wrote:
As another comparison, joss wrote alien ressurection. The movie where one character was the wheel chair guy, and one was the black guy, and one was the pilot, and one was the gruff jerk, and ripley was a strong female lead because she had super powers...

It was what if buffy was aliens.

While I think Whedon deserves a lot of flak, I think we should be fair and acknowledge the disaster that was this movie isn't really his fault.

Joss wrote four different scripts for Aliens 4, and every single one was bounced back by the executives who couldn't make up their mind what the movie was about but picked and chose ideas from the different scripts at random for some reason. Two other executives who are now on record as trying to sabotage the film to kill the franchise, which is kind of mind blowing when you think about it. Even when his final script was accepted he got mostly shut out by the director who ignored half of it and ad libed the other half and thought the film was bad idea from start to finish and just wanted to collect a pay check.

There were so many points of failure along Alien Resurrection's journey to mediocrity that blaming one of the few people who by all accounts was honestly trying just feels spiteful.

All that being true you can see his dna in all the parts they kept. The character bits in particular. Ripley being a super powered alien/human hybrid is exactly his shtick. The rest of the characters having basically no character is too.

And back to the marvel point, avengers 1 and 2 treat the characters the same way.

And putting 6 people together on screen as a team to fight 1 bad guy and his mooks isnt anything that hasnt been done before. Except other writer/directors managed to give the protagonists an actual story while doing it.

 Lance845 wrote:
All that being true you can see his dna in all the parts they kept. The character bits in particular.

Honestly I think this is a matter of taste. I like the way Whedon handles characterization, at least in film/TV formats. He's to filmography what Gaiman is to literature, and the criticism of characters having no character can be leveled at almost any action movie. It's a flaw of the genre, not of Whedon per se. There was never going to be enough room in Avengers for individual characters to show a lot of character. They'd all ultimately boil down to basic traits. At least for me, I think Whedon managed to make those traits interesting even if they're shallow.

Ripley being a super powered alien/human hybrid is exactly his shtick

It also wasn't his idea.

The first script was about a grown up Newt. The execs kicked it back and said make it about Ripley, which he thought was stupid cause she died in the last movie. Then Weaver got involved and this concept was born, but Weaver never gets any flak for it.

And putting 6 people together on screen as a team to fight 1 bad guy and his mooks isnt anything that hasnt been done before. Except other writer/directors managed to give the protagonists an actual story while doing it.

It's not, but as has been pointed out in the past, that's not what Avengers generally gets praised for.

Name another movie that is the culmination of multiple distinct films about different characters that then managed to bring them all together for an ensemble piece that wasn't a hot mess from start to finish.

There really aren't any.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
All that being true you can see his dna in all the parts they kept. The character bits in particular.

Honestly I think this is a matter of taste. I like the way Whedon handles characterization, at least in film/TV formats. He's to filmography what Gaiman is to literature, and the criticism of characters having no character can be leveled at almost any action movie. It's a flaw of the genre, not of Whedon per se. There was never going to be enough room in Avengers for individual characters to show a lot of character. They'd all ultimately boil down to basic traits. At least for me, I think Whedon managed to make those traits interesting even if they're shallow.

Ripley being a super powered alien/human hybrid is exactly his shtick

It also wasn't his idea.

The first script was about a grown up Newt. The execs kicked it back and said make it about Ripley, which he thought was stupid cause she died in the last movie. Then Weaver got involved and this concept was born, but Weaver never gets any flak for it.

And putting 6 people together on screen as a team to fight 1 bad guy and his mooks isnt anything that hasnt been done before. Except other writer/directors managed to give the protagonists an actual story while doing it.

It's not, but as has been pointed out in the past, that's not what Avengers generally gets praised for.

Name another movie that is the culmination of multiple distinct films about different characters that then managed to bring them all together for an ensemble piece that wasn't a hot mess from start to finish.

There really aren't any.

Abbott and Costello Meets Frankenstein!*


*yes, I went there.

Touche XD

Well, Joss Whedon is NO Abbott and Costello!




Captain marvel did exactly what it was supposed to do. It introduced us to Carol and Captain Marvel, fit her into the Marvel universe, explained why she is only appearing now. I'm not 100% sold on who Capt marvel is as a character, as I am not sure I liked her very much; but the movie did what it needed to do.

I was not 100% sure of what her Rooting Interest was, or the thing that makes the audience want to cheer for her. She partnered well with Fury;but on her own came across a bit arrogant, hard-edged, and sarcastic. Typically, I like my heroes to be a bit humbler, and she was not humble.

That being said, I am eager to see how she grows, since almost all other Marvel heroes have to learn to overcome this aspect of their personality IN the origin movie. She did not.

Carol has pretty much never been a humble character in the comics. She's generally pretty abrasive all around. I am curious how that fits in to Endgame.

FWIW, since they have a lot in common, that's something I always miss when they swap Hal out of the League for a more agreeable Lantern. Hal and Bats as Barry's Betty and Veronica is one of my favorite team dynamics.

 Lance845 wrote:

But in Civil war wanda and vision have a ark. Cap has one. Tony has one. BP has one. You get all of Nemos story unfolded before you. BW goes through some changes. Warmachine gets a little story in there. Civil war manages to have more depth with characters both new and old, central and not. What exactly was Joss doing in A1/2?

Avengers 1 was not meant to be character development movie, but a GROUP development movie. Basically assumption was that all the characters were already estabilished in earlier movies, and now they would have to learn to work together despite mistrust, it doesn't help that their opponent is an expert on creating mistrust. It would have been pointless to continue further character development since everybody had just been estabilished in their own movies. Whedon stated that he drew the concept from Ultimate Marvel (Ultimates), and it is obvious.

Now, I don't think the movie really worked as intended, I think Whedon's directing was somewhat plain compared to his earlier work, and it would have needed some other villain to support Loki who once again was not scary enough. It did not meet my (admittably huge) expectations, though in retrospect, it was not similar letdown as Avengers II. Maybe Whedon is past his prime as a writer by now (or needs a long break at least to reload idea banks), supposedly his Wonder Woman draft proposal was pretty bad.

 Lance845 wrote:

On shows like Firefly Wheddon is not writing alone and that writing staff gave those characters more depth. But then Wheddon alone writes the Serenity movie and suddenly everyone is reduced to single character trait sound bits. Serenity is the worst episode of Firefly. Wheddon sucks.

'Serenity' was never meant to be episode of Firefly. It was something Whedon threw together in a hurry because no company would pick up the series, and he had to make it much more action-y than the show was. If he had written it as a Firefly episode, it would have never seen the screen (big or small).

Whedon was doing Buffy, Angel and Firefly at the same time, with the result that he could give only little of his time to each series, delegating work to hacks like Drew Greenberg, and quality of all those shows suffered as a result. Firefly was quite frankly very hit & miss when it comes to episode quality (I recall the brothel defence episode, it was awful). It is no coincidence that Angel's final season was big improvement over anything he did year before as Firefly and Buffy had ended.

And yes, Buffy was revolutionary in execution and the famed "MCU style" owes much to Whedon's work. Instead of doing a "comedy" show, he wrote a very serious show, where the characters were just very funny. This is coincidentally what went wrong in the first Buffy movie (1992) where producers did not understand the intent and just made it an action comedy and it fell flat. And instead of doing "Monster of the week" show (as most shows were on TV back then), he had long storylines and people could die, got sent in hell or have their eye gouged out.

Shes very blunt and matter of fact. Once she was with spider man when venom was there. She asks spidey what his deal is and he explains the guy is powerless its all the suit. So she goes "got it", reaches down venoms throat, grabs mac gargan (the host at the time), and ripped him out of the symbiote.

It temporarily backfired when venom jumped onto her but it illustrates her personality and tactics. She gets the intel and acts decisively to end it fast. A lot of people take her lack of tact and diplomacy as abbrassivness. But she tends to just pile drive through problems.

 Easy E wrote:

I was not 100% sure of what her Rooting Interest was, or the thing that makes the audience want to cheer for her. She partnered well with Fury;but on her own came across a bit arrogant, hard-edged, and sarcastic. Typically, I like my heroes to be a bit humbler, and she was not humble.

I take you don't like House?

No one likes House.

We just love watching him find inventive new ways to gak on everyone around him, like a car crash you can't look away from

Admitted I can totally get how that kind of character doesn't mesh easily with the classic model of comic book heroism.

It’s still something we’ve not seen in the Avengers as a team, even though they’re all, in their own peculiar and particular ways, incredibly dysfunctional people.

Indeed it’s them still managing to work as a team despite their flaws that makes them so interesting.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
People in this thread like Snyder and dump on Whedon. Well, I guess it’s true what they say about bad opinions. Whedon’s super hero movies crushed it at the box office. Snyder’s generally sucked. It’s not hard for me to see which one is more appreciated by the general public and why.

Jimi Hendrix was a one hit wonder. By contrast, the Spice Girls went platinum more than once and had several songs in the top 40. Fiscal profitability with the sheeple does NOT equal quality.

I've seen some really good reviews on this one.

Might pick it up on amazon.

saw the movie....
1) love brie larson
2) Adore Goose
3) did not like the movie (no surprise there, dont like super hero movies anyway and loathe origin stories)
4) prefer brie in roles like freefire "we cant all be nice girls" was a great line at the right time.
5) would have been perfectly thrilled to see her spend 2 hours in costume playing with Goose (who was a male cat)

 thekingofkings wrote:
saw the movie....

3) did not like the movie (no surprise there, dont like super hero movies anyway and loathe origin stories)

I think you are very confused.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
saw the movie....

3) did not like the movie (no surprise there, dont like super hero movies anyway and loathe origin stories)

I think you are very confused.

no just have to take kids to see pretty much anything with the word "Marvel" or DC, or Batman, etc..

 Just Tony wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
People in this thread like Snyder and dump on Whedon. Well, I guess it’s true what they say about bad opinions. Whedon’s super hero movies crushed it at the box office. Snyder’s generally sucked. It’s not hard for me to see which one is more appreciated by the general public and why.

Jimi Hendrix was a one hit wonder. By contrast, the Spice Girls went platinum more than once and had several songs in the top 40. Fiscal profitability with the sheeple does NOT equal quality.

Did you just compare Jimi Hendrix, God of Guitar, and...,Spice Girls?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
saw the movie....

3) did not like the movie (no surprise there, dont like super hero movies anyway and loathe origin stories)

I think you are very confused.

no just have to take kids to see pretty much anything with the word "Marvel" or DC, or Batman, etc..

I have been there. So many Disney princesses...

At least most of the princess movies are actually pretty good. There are far worse films out there thrown at kids... not to mention everything that goes straight to Netflix these days.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Saw it last night and really enjoyed it.

Loved how they handled her origin and where she got her powers from - nice call back to the comics without being overly complicated.

Loved the 'twists' too - they were twitsy enough to be entertaining without being too Shyamalanian in nature, if you know what I mean!

Just because I've been waiting for an opportunity to post this:

Spoiler:

The Kree actually being bad guys is not exactly a twist

Ah, probably should have kept that in your holster then - because maybe it's not one if you're a somewhat devoted comic book reader, but certainly it is one if you're just watching *this* movie.

 Alpharius wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
Saw it last night and really enjoyed it.

Loved how they handled her origin and where she got her powers from - nice call back to the comics without being overly complicated.

Loved the 'twists' too - they were twitsy enough to be entertaining without being too Shyamalanian in nature, if you know what I mean!

Just because I've been waiting for an opportunity to post this:

Spoiler:

The Kree actually being bad guys is not exactly a twist

Ah, probably should have kept that in your holster then - because maybe it's not one if you're a somewhat devoted comic book reader, but certainly it is one if you're just watching *this* movie.

I suppose. I just figure between GotG and SHIELD and I feel like somewhere else, it had been pretty firmly established in the MCU already; but I can see the argument the other way.

Good point on GotG (maybe - Ronan is a rogue Kree in that, isn't he?) and possibly on Agents of Shield - but I don't think many people watch that show anymore (or ever?) because the MCU as barely connected to it, and that kind of...annoyed a lot of its potential core audience?

Yeah. GotG has the Nova Corps on Xandar being like... we finally have a cease fire with the Kree. But Ronan the Accuser is going ballistic. And the Kree she is talking to is all "::Sigh:: the Kree empire has it's own problems. Ronan is yours."

They never came across as a race of "noble warrior heroes" in the mcu before.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
People in this thread like Snyder and dump on Whedon. Well, I guess it’s true what they say about bad opinions. Whedon’s super hero movies crushed it at the box office. Snyder’s generally sucked. It’s not hard for me to see which one is more appreciated by the general public and why.

Jimi Hendrix was a one hit wonder. By contrast, the Spice Girls went platinum more than once and had several songs in the top 40. Fiscal profitability with the sheeple does NOT equal quality.

Did you just compare Jimi Hendrix, God of Guitar, and...,Spice Girls?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
saw the movie....

3) did not like the movie (no surprise there, dont like super hero movies anyway and loathe origin stories)

I think you are very confused.

no just have to take kids to see pretty much anything with the word "Marvel" or DC, or Batman, etc..

I have been there. So many Disney princesses...

feeling your pain, I can actually sing "let it go"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LunarSol wrote:
At least most of the princess movies are actually pretty good. There are far worse films out there thrown at kids... not to mention everything that goes straight to Netflix these days.

Its still a lot to handle including the "Descendents"

Descendants is 100% the kind of straight to home schlock to fear. I'll watch Frozen a dozen times happily. Descendants is a totally different kind of torture.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
People in this thread like Snyder and dump on Whedon. Well, I guess it’s true what they say about bad opinions. Whedon’s super hero movies crushed it at the box office. Snyder’s generally sucked. It’s not hard for me to see which one is more appreciated by the general public and why.

Jimi Hendrix was a one hit wonder. By contrast, the Spice Girls went platinum more than once and had several songs in the top 40. Fiscal profitability with the sheeple does NOT equal quality.

Did you just compare Jimi Hendrix, God of Guitar, and...,Spice Girls?

Yeah, my eyes bled a bit on that one too. And if we're actually accepting that line of thought...I'm pretty positive the world accepts Jimi Hendrix as the god of guitars. The world accepts the Spice Girls as...annoying music that only young girls liked? It's not like people said "Jimi sucks", and other people went "no, his stuff is just so deep! You don't understand! Leave Jimi alone!!"

And yes. I just "'Leave Britney alone' guy'd" Tony. The gauntlet is down!

 Frazzled wrote:
I have been there. So many Disney princesses...

Yeah, but which one was the best? Have you thought about that?

About the Hendrix vs Spice Girl thing, I was under the impression that Hendrix fans were mostly young men (who are now older). That doesn't make him "measurably" better then the Spice Girls. It's just that most people on this board are in the demographic that Hendrix was producing for and not in the one dominated by the Spice Girls. We can't really compare these two like we can compare Whedon and Snyder or how we can compare Marvel and DC. Both are competing for the same demographic.

Well, just saw it. I liked it quite a bit - I'd put it somewhere in the upper third of the marvel movies I've seen.

I would agree that the music was both good, but hamfistedly inserted into the movie.




Really excited about Endgame now!

I'm sure they've got something big planned for Endgame and I'm sure it will be worth it, but part of me really kind of wishes this was the last Stan Lee cameo. It would just make for a nice, full circle kind of closer.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
People in this thread like Snyder and dump on Whedon. Well, I guess it’s true what they say about bad opinions. Whedon’s super hero movies crushed it at the box office. Snyder’s generally sucked. It’s not hard for me to see which one is more appreciated by the general public and why.

Jimi Hendrix was a one hit wonder. By contrast, the Spice Girls went platinum more than once and had several songs in the top 40. Fiscal profitability with the sheeple does NOT equal quality.

Did you just compare Jimi Hendrix, God of Guitar, and...,Spice Girls?

No, he contrasted the relative lack of commercial success of Jimi Hendrix, God of Guitar with the huge commercial success of the Spice Girls despite their music being pop drivel.

Spice Girls may have been pop drivel, but at least they were competent pop drivel. That they’re remembered at all is testament to that, when so many impostors and would be clones have all but faded from memory.

Consider it as Burgers.

If I wanted a really good Burger? In my town, I’d head to Marlowe’s, or Sankey’s. But, if I’m just in the mood for a Burger, and I’m on the hoof, McDonalds provides a certain base quality to work from.

So just because my town has two clearly superior Burger joints doesn’t mean McDonalds should be shunned. It’s known, it’s cheap, it’s reliable.

After all, if nothing sucked, how would we know if something was cool? And if just one TV channel didn’t suck, we’d still need the other 9,000,000. Because all the programmes that suck? You gotta put them somewhere. You can’t put them on the cool channel.

But in terms of Snyder? You know the Midas Touch? He’s got that. Except it’s the faecal touch As Michael Bay has his asplosion, Snyder has his gratuitous upskirt.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
People in this thread like Snyder and dump on Whedon. Well, I guess it’s true what they say about bad opinions. Whedon’s super hero movies crushed it at the box office. Snyder’s generally sucked. It’s not hard for me to see which one is more appreciated by the general public and why.

Jimi Hendrix was a one hit wonder. By contrast, the Spice Girls went platinum more than once and had several songs in the top 40. Fiscal profitability with the sheeple does NOT equal quality.

Did you just compare Jimi Hendrix, God of Guitar, and...,Spice Girls?

No, he contrasted the relative lack of commercial success of Jimi Hendrix, God of Guitar with the huge commercial success of the Spice Girls despite their music being pop drivel.

Listen, if you guys are looking for people to contest Jimi Hendrix on his Guitar prowess, look no further. He died too early to give him the "God of Guitar" title and what he did put out was good, it was definitely not God of Guitar worthy.

Also, somebody should have taken the mic away from him because he ruins every one of his songs by trying to sing.

Moving on. I am attempting to go and see this in theaters after the good reviews have come in(I don't live in a town with a movie theater and I do not own a car, some of us are poor!). Glad people are using spoiler tags in this thread so I can actually judge peoples reactions to it rather than walking in to a bunch of spoilers nobody asked for/wanted to see out in the open.

 Vulcan wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
People in this thread like Snyder and dump on Whedon. Well, I guess it’s true what they say about bad opinions. Whedon’s super hero movies crushed it at the box office. Snyder’s generally sucked. It’s not hard for me to see which one is more appreciated by the general public and why.

Jimi Hendrix was a one hit wonder. By contrast, the Spice Girls went platinum more than once and had several songs in the top 40. Fiscal profitability with the sheeple does NOT equal quality.

Did you just compare Jimi Hendrix, God of Guitar, and...,Spice Girls?

No, he contrasted the relative lack of commercial success of Jimi Hendrix, God of Guitar with the huge commercial success of the Spice Girls despite their music being pop drivel.

This guy gets it.



Also, as far as guitar god goes? Two words: Randy Rhoads.

Dreadwinter wrote:
Moving on. I am attempting to go and see this in theaters after the good reviews have come in(I don't live in a town with a movie theater and I do not own a car, some of us are poor!). Glad people are using spoiler tags in this thread so I can actually judge peoples reactions to it rather than walking in to a bunch of spoilers nobody asked for/wanted to see out in the open.

It is most definitely worth seeing. Though like many of Marvel's origin movies, I'm not sure it necessarily benefits from the big screen the way stuff like LotR did (Dr Strange being an exception, as it added to the mind bending spectacle. YMMV). But seeing it on the big screen won't leave you feeling short changed I feel (compared to say, By The Numbers RomCom Where The Nerd Ditches Her Glasses And People Realise She's Hot Whilst Jennifer Lopez Plays A Rags To Riches Maid #25658332185621)

Hey, I went and saw Isn't It Romantic and it was perfectly watchable and amusing, if you accept that it is also deeply stupid walking in.

...how does that relate to Captain Marvel or, at a stretch I guess, the MCU?

It doesn;t, but he wa scomparing Captain Marvel vs. a stupid rom-com. They just provide something different.

Something refreshing about Captain Marvel was there was no romantic sub-plot like Natalie Portman in Thor, Pepper in Iron Man, that other Doctor in Dr. Strange, etc. There may have been a small bro-mance between the two female pilots, but it was more friendship and mutual respect.

Yeah! Romance is for wusses! Wasn't it George Peppard who said "Girls get in the way of the action".

Ahem

Actually, I think Pepper was perfectly placed in Iron Man. If only because the near end scene where she crushes Tony's one-sided memory of the dance night. Although after that she seems to exist to tell Tony off for being Iron Man.

 Easy E wrote:
It doesn;t, but he wa scomparing Captain Marvel vs. a stupid rom-com. They just provide something different.

Something refreshing about Captain Marvel was there was no romantic sub-plot like Natalie Portman in Thor, Pepper in Iron Man, that other Doctor in Dr. Strange, etc. There may have been a small bro-mance between the two female pilots, but it was more friendship and mutual respect.

Ah, gotcha!

And you know what - I didn't even realize that there wasn't a romantic sub-plot in CM while watching it - and obviously I didn't miss not having one too!

 Easy E wrote:
It doesn;t, but he wa scomparing Captain Marvel vs. a stupid rom-com. They just provide something different.

Something refreshing about Captain Marvel was there was no romantic sub-plot like Natalie Portman in Thor, Pepper in Iron Man, that other Doctor in Dr. Strange, etc. There may have been a small bro-mance between the two female pilots, but it was more friendship and mutual respect.

That's good to hear. I liked Pepper Potts mind you, but Black Widow feels weird in how they treat her.

Part of what makes Pepper work is simply that they've been willing to keep advancing their relationship past the will they won't they shlock. It's helped make her smaller appearances post IM3 feel more meaningful and made her prior damsel in distress roles feel as important in hindsight as they did initially.

Black Widow definitely gets stuck with the "there's a girl here! Quick, find her a man!" that you find in pretty much every movie ever. Captain Marvel basically never even approaching that was certainly refreshing.

Yeah, it's unfortunate, too. Black Widow's interrogating Loki was perfect, so it's not like they hadn't demonstrated they didn't know how to use her character concept properly... they just chose not to.

Black Widow sorta flirting with Cap was cool, but pairing her off with Banner - on the grounds that he was only eligible one - was/is gringeworthy. Those two have no chemistry whatsoever.

My thoughts exactly.

Thanks joss whedon!

 Easy E wrote:

Something refreshing about Captain Marvel was there was no romantic sub-plot like Natalie Portman in Thor, Pepper in Iron Man, that other Doctor in Dr. Strange, etc. There may have been a small bro-mance between the two female pilots, but it was more friendship and mutual respect.

What? Did you completely miss the whole Fury/Goose romance?

 LunarSol wrote:
Part of what makes Pepper work is simply that they've been willing to keep advancing their relationship past the will they won't they shlock. It's helped make her smaller appearances post IM3 feel more meaningful and made her prior damsel in distress roles feel as important in hindsight as they did initially.

Black Widow definitely gets stuck with the "there's a girl here! Quick, find her a man!" that you find in pretty much every movie ever. Captain Marvel basically never even approaching that was certainly refreshing.

In fairness, Black Widow has always been somewhat sensual femme fatale who doesn't mind having a hot dude around. However, Banner is, well, not really her type.
Such doesn't really fit to character of Danvers though, unless we consider Marcus. Let us hope they won't bring that reviled storyline to big screen.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

Something refreshing about Captain Marvel was there was no romantic sub-plot like Natalie Portman in Thor, Pepper in Iron Man, that other Doctor in Dr. Strange, etc. There may have been a small bro-mance between the two female pilots, but it was more friendship and mutual respect.

What? Did you completely miss the whole Fury/Goose romance?

They cut that scene outside of Japan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Backfire wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Part of what makes Pepper work is simply that they've been willing to keep advancing their relationship past the will they won't they shlock. It's helped make her smaller appearances post IM3 feel more meaningful and made her prior damsel in distress roles feel as important in hindsight as they did initially.

Black Widow definitely gets stuck with the "there's a girl here! Quick, find her a man!" that you find in pretty much every movie ever. Captain Marvel basically never even approaching that was certainly refreshing.

In fairness, Black Widow has always been somewhat sensual femme fatale who doesn't mind having a hot dude around. However, Banner is, well, not really her type.
Such doesn't really fit to character of Danvers though, unless we consider Marcus. Let us hope they won't bring that reviled storyline to big screen.

There is basically zero chance anyone mentions Marcus ever. That's just... no... just no.

I definitely understand the femme fatale angle with BW, it just got misused too many times. A lot of the problem isn't even the misuse, its that it never went anywhere. Like if she ever got an arc about how she's constantly feigning affecting and needs something real to hold onto or something... fine. Even the Banner ship, while weird, could have resulted in something interesting like Hulk being jealous of Banner. It's mostly problematic because of the absence of something more substantial.

I... was not impressed by the movie. Superman syndrome, I think - the main character is too powerful. The visuals were cool, to be sure, but the script just wandered without there ever seeming to be a point other than introducing the character. There was never any kind of real danger, tension or character moments that engage or define her beyond "she's a superpowerful warrior-chick that we wanna shoe-horn into the MCU! Check it out you guys!"
Also, (minor gripe, but it kinda bugs me) why the don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n do Fury and a lot of other Shield stuff look like they're from a seventies cop movie rather than a secret organisation from the nineties?

... thinking back, you're not wrong.

It's like Kingsmen 2, where the villain's lair was based on 1980's nostalgia of the 1950's. Instead we got 1990's versions of cops from the 1970's.

Watched it last night.

As a couple hours of visual spectacle, it did its job well. As a coherent narrative plot, it was a total disaster.

Honestly, Captain Marvel herself was the least interesting part of the movie, particularly by the end after going super sayan it just ends up with Superman syndrome (shooting a downed spaceship with photon blast hands to make it fly again, really?).

The Skrull, Rambeau, and Fury were way more engaging in that regard than anything to do directly with the main character.

200% glad they didnt try and ham-fist a romance in there.

Honestly, I think you could have cut Captain Marvel out completely, just had it be Fury and the Skrull and linking Annete Bennings character through to Rambeau instead, and ultimately would have had a better movie (particularly as a Fury backstory), but no macguffin to kill off Thanos for the Avengers

The added background elements could be awesome for future MCU flicks, and overall it wasn't awful.

 Vaktathi wrote:
(shooting a downed spaceship with photon blast hands to make it fly again, really?).

It's not my favorite part of the film by any means, but in its defense she's literally a living version of the engine powering the ship, so its not.... completely... insane?

It looks like the sales drop from Sunday to Monday was huge, a 72% drop in sales. That's noticeably worse than even Batman vs. Superman.

I have to wonder exactly how many of those weekend seats the studio was buying to inflate their own numbers..

 cuda1179 wrote:
I have to wonder exactly how many of those weekend seats the studio was buying to inflate their own numbers..

That's just tinfoil hattery. The whole point of having good sales numbers and making a movie look good is to generate profit, and spending hundreds of millions of dollars on buying empty seats (which somehow nobody noticed in a "sold out" theater) means throwing away the movie's profitability. The only way buying up seats would make any sense is if the cost of doing so is extremely cheap, but then that inherently means that any studio-bought seats can't have any significant effect on the total sales. Given the fact that the reviews so far seem positive overall, with the worst criticism outside of the right-wing lunatic fringe being "it's a generic MCU movie, meh", a sudden revelation of the movie being terrible doesn't make any sense either. If I had to guess I'd say that maybe the controversy pushed some later ticket sales up to opening week, giving it good opening numbers at the cost of showing a steeper drop for the second week.

I just saw the movie today and I thought it was okay. It has pretty much the same problem then many Marvel movie. They push their joke a bit too often and too hard. The acting was competant without being great, but I must admit Larson's voice/tone grates me a little bit, but it's through no fault of her own (I mean I don't really like the sound of her voice, what can she do about that). Stories of lost memories in this sort of media are extremely hard to handle and can get very annoying, but I thought it was fairly well handled. I especially liked how they exposition dumped Carol's past while being mind probed by the Skrulls. I thought it was fairly clever and interesting at least.

 LunarSol wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
(shooting a downed spaceship with photon blast hands to make it fly again, really?).

It's not my favorite part of the film by any means, but in its defense she's literally a living version of the engine powering the ship, so its not.... completely... insane?

I just viewed it as a fancier version of kicking/punching something to get it working again cliche.

 cuda1179 wrote:
It looks like the sales drop from Sunday to Monday was huge, a 72% drop in sales. That's noticeably worse than even Batman vs. Superman.

I have to wonder exactly how many of those weekend seats the studio was buying to inflate their own numbers..

Other movies in a similar timeframe:
How to Train Your Dragon 3 - drop from Sunday to Monday opening weekend: 85%
* Lego Movie 2: 86%
* Greta: 66%


Similar movie types:

* Avengers: 67%
* Civil War: 68%
* Thor: 68%
* Logan 70%
*Iron Man 2 70%
*Doctor Strange 71%
* Spider Man - Spiderverse 72%
* Iron Man: 74%
*Iron Man 3 74%
* Age of Ultron: 74%
* Winter Soldier: 74%
* Thor Ragnarok: 74%
* Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2: 75%


Definitely proof of a vast, unprecedented conspiracy. *Nods sagely*

Definitely shows how widespread the problem really is.

Oh yes, clear scene of conspiracy. Spending their own money to make it look like they’re making more money, to hide from themselves evidence that their film, that they made and released, isn’t doing as well as they hoped.

*nods parsleyly*

Yes. This whole time we all thought the MCU was a massive successful franchise doing something unprecedented. But lo' we were fools! FOOLS! They tricked us with every sales report!

*nads thymely*

I quite agree!

Don't you see, anything that contradicts cuda's preconceptions just shows how deep the SJW conspiracy goes!

*nods bayleafly*

That there is no evidence is evidence enough that he’s right!

It’s a conspiracy, and apparently, I’m in on it!

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
It looks like the sales drop from Sunday to Monday was huge, a 72% drop in sales. That's noticeably worse than even Batman vs. Superman.

I have to wonder exactly how many of those weekend seats the studio was buying to inflate their own numbers..

Other movies in a similar timeframe:
How to Train Your Dragon 3 - drop from Sunday to Monday opening weekend: 85%
* Lego Movie 2: 86%
* Greta: 66%


Similar movie types:

* Avengers: 67%
* Civil War: 68%
* Thor: 68%
* Logan 70%
*Iron Man 2 70%
*Doctor Strange 71%
* Spider Man - Spiderverse 72%
* Iron Man: 74%
*Iron Man 3 74%
* Age of Ultron: 74%
* Winter Soldier: 74%
* Thor Ragnarok: 74%
* Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2: 75%


Definitely proof of a vast, unprecedented conspiracy. *Nods sagely*

now that you have discovered the secret, expect goons to arrive soon.

Indeed.

Sadly, I suspect we might have heard the last of Ouze...

[Nodding sagely intensifies]

*nods Oregonly*

Indeed so!

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
It looks like the sales drop from Sunday to Monday was huge, a 72% drop in sales. That's noticeably worse than even Batman vs. Superman.

I have to wonder exactly how many of those weekend seats the studio was buying to inflate their own numbers..

Other movies in a similar timeframe:
How to Train Your Dragon 3 - drop from Sunday to Monday opening weekend: 85%
* Lego Movie 2: 86%
* Greta: 66%


Similar movie types:

* Avengers: 67%
* Civil War: 68%
* Thor: 68%
* Logan 70%
*Iron Man 2 70%
*Doctor Strange 71%
* Spider Man - Spiderverse 72%
* Iron Man: 74%
*Iron Man 3 74%
* Age of Ultron: 74%
* Winter Soldier: 74%
* Thor Ragnarok: 74%
* Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2: 75%


Definitely proof of a vast, unprecedented conspiracy. *Nods sagely*

In all fairness, How to Train Your Dragon 3 and Lego Movie 2 are both animated kids films. These are expected to have much larger falls on Mondays, especially during the school year. They depend more on weekend sales. Not to mention that they are sequels, and as a general rule each progressive sequel falls more than the movie before it.

As for the rest of the list, Thor, Logan, and Iron Man 2 & 3 are pretty bad movies. GotG2, Age of Ultron, Spiderverse, and Dr. Strange are passable, but not "good". Setting this as the bar is hardly fair.

As for the studio buying tickets, there were many theaters reporting that dozens of paid-for seats from online ticket sales were no-shows, and these no shows happened in about the same quantity for every showing over the opening weekend. Did a conspiracy actually happen? Maybe, likely not, but let's play devil' advocate and see what it would take. On opening weekend of a major release a studio's take of the ticket price is about 90%. Average ticket price in the US is $8.50. All they'd be loosing is 85 cents per seat. For $750,000 (less than 0.5% of their budget) they could buy 882,000 seats and inflate their own sales by $7.5 million. But why would they do this? Well, at one point the movie was estimated to have a $190 million opening, and then started to plummet quickly. Some estimates put it lower than $100 million. Inflating your own sales numbers could stop a self-fulfilling prophecy of people not going simply because it wasn't selling well.

Yes.

But why?

What’s the point? What do they actually stand to gain? Where’s the advantage. Where’s the profit?

Can you not just accept the film is a pretty decent hit, and made good money?

Are these ‘reports’ from theatres ratified? Or is it just 4chanesque hearsay? A desperate swipe from sad little MRAs who utterly failed to stop the film being a legitimate hit?

Forbes certainly don’t think it’s at all remarkable. They even describe it as ‘an exceptionally boring drop’.

The thing is now with preordering for seats being required you're going to see missing seats more than the old way. Peoples dinner runs late or they decide to do something else or whatever. Sell outs with empty seats happen all the time at my local theater and I'm pretty sure big movie companies aren't buying up seats in 6 screen theatres in Waconia, MN.

 cuda1179 wrote:
In all fairness, How to Train Your Dragon 3 and Lego Movie 2 are both animated kids films.

Lego 2 and Marvel movies share pretty much the same demographic: teenagers and young adults who grew up with the source material. Plus, your argument seems rather stupid. Children movies should perform better then adult movies in theatre since adults work during the day, while young children don't have school and can go to movies with stay-at-home parents or grand parents. All movies will see a big drop in their attendance during the week for the obvious reason of work + school getting in the way. Plus, most people won't see a movie twice in cinema even if it was good. They just dont have the time for it.

As for the rest of the list, Thor, Logan, and Iron Man 2 & 3 are pretty bad movies.

Logan is widely viewed as a very good superhero movie, actually one of the best in the genre. It has a rating of around 92% both in the public and critique sphere of Rotten Tomatoes.

GotG2, Age of Ultron, Spiderverse, and Dr. Strange are passable, but not "good". Setting this as the bar is hardly fair.

Spiderverse is also widely acclaimed and with a similar, extremelt high score from critique and audience alike. Doctor strange also received quite a bit of praise, especially for its visuals, and a score of over 85% both from critique and audience.

If you want to make an argument about Captain Marvel's, here is a simple test. Can it stay at the top of the Box Office until Shazam hits the theater in two weeks? If it can, it seems that Captain Marvel has been well received, if it can't and is dethroned by the very well received How to Train Your Dragon 3 or Lego 2 movies then yes, we could say this movie is a financial fiasco. Note that a movie making a lot of money doesn't mean the movie is good. Tranformers movies were known to be terrible, especially the last ones, yet they did make a tremendous amount of money. Captain Marvel isn't a very good movie (I'd personnaly give it a 65%, but it's not that bad and can surf a long way on the MCU popularity).

Plus, your argument seems rather stupid.

I would have said desperate.

I'm not even sure there are straws to be reaching for here.

There's really no world where a movie that breaks a billion isn't a hit, and Captain Marvel is already at $800 on opening weekend. It's going to hit a billion. That the fallback now is "but the movie makers are buying up the seats" is just laughable. Movies aren't like the publishing industry. You can't artificially inflate your sales numbers to get your movie on top of the best sellers list in this industry.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
It looks like the sales drop from Sunday to Monday was huge, a 72% drop in sales. That's noticeably worse than even Batman vs. Superman.

I have to wonder exactly how many of those weekend seats the studio was buying to inflate their own numbers..

Other movies in a similar timeframe:
How to Train Your Dragon 3 - drop from Sunday to Monday opening weekend: 85%
* Lego Movie 2: 86%
* Greta: 66%


Similar movie types:

* Avengers: 67%
* Civil War: 68%
* Thor: 68%
* Logan 70%
*Iron Man 2 70%
*Doctor Strange 71%
* Spider Man - Spiderverse 72%
* Iron Man: 74%
*Iron Man 3 74%
* Age of Ultron: 74%
* Winter Soldier: 74%
* Thor Ragnarok: 74%
* Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2: 75%


Definitely proof of a vast, unprecedented conspiracy. *Nods sagely*

In all fairness, How to Train Your Dragon 3 and Lego Movie 2 are both animated kids films. These are expected to have much larger falls on Mondays, especially during the school year. They depend more on weekend sales. Not to mention that they are sequels, and as a general rule each progressive sequel falls more than the movie before it.

As for the rest of the list, Thor, Logan, and Iron Man 2 & 3 are pretty bad movies. GotG2, Age of Ultron, Spiderverse, and Dr. Strange are passable, but not "good". Setting this as the bar is hardly fair.

As for the studio buying tickets, there were many theaters reporting that dozens of paid-for seats from online ticket sales were no-shows, and these no shows happened in about the same quantity for every showing over the opening weekend. Did a conspiracy actually happen? Maybe, likely not, but let's play devil' advocate and see what it would take. On opening weekend of a major release a studio's take of the ticket price is about 90%. Average ticket price in the US is $8.50. All they'd be loosing is 85 cents per seat. For $750,000 (less than 0.5% of their budget) they could buy 882,000 seats and inflate their own sales by $7.5 million. But why would they do this? Well, at one point the movie was estimated to have a $190 million opening, and then started to plummet quickly. Some estimates put it lower than $100 million. Inflating your own sales numbers could stop a self-fulfilling prophecy of people not going simply because it wasn't selling well.

First, kids movies tend to be released not during school times. Xmas and spring break and the summer. 2nd, spiderverse passable? Thats idiotic. Its lauded as one of the best movies of the year in a year jam packed with great movies. YOU might not like it but the general consensus is vastly different from your portrayal.


Finally, the only place where studios are buying seats is china. And here is why. The same parent company or umbrella of companies in china own the movie making studio, the movie theaters, and the movie distribution companies. So, when they make the movie, sell out their own theaters, and distribute them to their own guys, it basically costs them nothing because all the profits from each seat sold go right back to the same parent company anyway while boosting falsified critical responses and getting them money in other loop holes from chinese law. This kind of monopoly of the entire industry is illegal in America and not possible.

Your arguments are idiotic. Might as well sign up for the flat earthers.

my theatre was sold out, and I would say a good 4-6 seats were empty..hardly a "empty theatre" and of course screaming kids and cell phone calls etc... caused some folks to leave. pretty typical movie to be honest. nothing special, nothing out of the ordinary.

 cuda1179 wrote:
As for the studio buying tickets, there were many theaters reporting that dozens of paid-for seats from online ticket sales were no-shows, and these no shows happened in about the same quantity for every showing over the opening weekend. Did a conspiracy actually happen? Maybe, likely not, but let's play devil' advocate and see what it would take. On opening weekend of a major release a studio's take of the ticket price is about 90%. Average ticket price in the US is $8.50. All they'd be loosing is 85 cents per seat. For $750,000 (less than 0.5% of their budget) they could buy 882,000 seats and inflate their own sales by $7.5 million. But why would they do this? Well, at one point the movie was estimated to have a $190 million opening, and then started to plummet quickly. Some estimates put it lower than $100 million. Inflating your own sales numbers could stop a self-fulfilling prophecy of people not going simply because it wasn't selling well.

This makes absolutely no sense. Even if we grant every one of your assumptions you're still talking about adding a $7.5 million improvement to a movie that is supposedly falling short of projections by over $90 million. Your fake ticket scam would be making up less than 10% of the missing money. Try to cover the entire $90 million and now you're talking about 5% of the budget spent purely on a PR stunt that's going to be incredibly obvious because half the seats in every "sold out theater" are empty. And all it takes is one employee to leak details of the scam and now you've got a humiliating PR debacle to deal with.

And really, who bases their decision to see a movie on its total ticket sales? Reviews by critics? Sure. Opinions of friends who saw it earlier? Absolutely. But how many people do you honestly think are looking at the financial reports and saying "well, this movie is only making $100 million this week, must be bad" and ignoring the countless reviews saying that it's a typical MCU movie and if you enjoy the genre you'll probably like it? Those numbers are of interest to a certain type of fan, but the majority of potential customers have no clue what a movie's sales numbers are unless they're breaking records enough to be front-page news.

 cuda1179 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
It looks like the sales drop from Sunday to Monday was huge, a 72% drop in sales. That's noticeably worse than even Batman vs. Superman.

I have to wonder exactly how many of those weekend seats the studio was buying to inflate their own numbers..

Other movies in a similar timeframe:
How to Train Your Dragon 3 - drop from Sunday to Monday opening weekend: 85%
* Lego Movie 2: 86%
* Greta: 66%


Similar movie types:

* Avengers: 67%
* Civil War: 68%
* Thor: 68%
* Logan 70%
*Iron Man 2 70%
*Doctor Strange 71%
* Spider Man - Spiderverse 72%
* Iron Man: 74%
*Iron Man 3 74%
* Age of Ultron: 74%
* Winter Soldier: 74%
* Thor Ragnarok: 74%
* Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2: 75%


Definitely proof of a vast, unprecedented conspiracy. *Nods sagely*

(snip)
As for the rest of the list, Thor, Logan, and Iron Man 2 & 3 are pretty bad movies. GotG2, Age of Ultron, Spiderverse, and Dr. Strange are passable, but not "good". Setting this as the bar is hardly fair.

Oh, Cuda. The first rule of holes. But, here we are. First, you're trying to somehow characterize the (bad) argument into a new one based on critical quality, but no, I'm not going to let you handwave away what you said. You said that the movie had a "huge" 72% drop in sales and that was even worse then the execrable Batman vs Superman. However, if you had thought this out a little, you'd realize that is a laughable, clown shoes argument because that is a big Sunday to Monday drop is pretty normal. I'd guess 95% of the MCU had drops in excess of 50%, and at least a third of them had movies right on par with what Captain Marvel had. Some of the best ones had drops worse. Regardless of the critical merit of those movies or lack thereof, which again wasn't actually the argument, every single one of those movies was a financial success.

I can't wait to see what new metric or outlandish conspiracy theory is invented to explain that ackchyually, this likely billion dollar movie is quite bad. Not popular with left handed tuba players? 100% of the Mars rovers have not seen it? Brie Larson used her paycheck to buy hundreds of thousands of tickets? Unfortunately, I think you're on your own on this one, the rest of the "get woke, go broke" guys seem to have abandoned the thread.

Wouldn’t it make sense that a more popular movie would have a larger Monday drop anyways since there were more people seeing it initially? Like it’s hard to have a big drop if you didn’t have big numbers to start with.

It’s quite typical for a movie of this type to do most of its business on its opening weekend, that’s why so much importance is placed on the opening weekend figures. The simple truth is that Captain Marvel has not only done very well at the box office, it has exceeded most people’s expectations.

I saw it last night. I enjoyed it. It’s not my new favourite MCU movie, but I don’t expect every new MCU movie to be my new favourite MCU movie. I like how it filled in more details on the Cosmic side of things, always my favourite part of Marvel.

Very much looking forward to Endgame now, but given recent news, I’m looking forward to Guardians of the Galaxy 3 even more.

 cuda1179 wrote:

In all fairness, How to Train Your Dragon 3 and Lego Movie 2 are both animated kids films. These are expected to have much larger falls on Mondays, especially during the school year. They depend more on weekend sales. Not to mention that they are sequels, and as a general rule each progressive sequel falls more than the movie before it.

As for the rest of the list, Thor, Logan, and Iron Man 2 & 3 are pretty bad movies. GotG2, Age of Ultron, Spiderverse, and Dr. Strange are passable, but not "good". Setting this as the bar is hardly fair.

As for the studio buying tickets, there were many theaters reporting that dozens of paid-for seats from online ticket sales were no-shows, and these no shows happened in about the same quantity for every showing over the opening weekend. Did a conspiracy actually happen? Maybe, likely not, but let's play devil' advocate and see what it would take. On opening weekend of a major release a studio's take of the ticket price is about 90%. Average ticket price in the US is $8.50. All they'd be loosing is 85 cents per seat. For $750,000 (less than 0.5% of their budget) they could buy 882,000 seats and inflate their own sales by $7.5 million. But why would they do this? Well, at one point the movie was estimated to have a $190 million opening, and then started to plummet quickly. Some estimates put it lower than $100 million. Inflating your own sales numbers could stop a self-fulfilling prophecy of people not going simply because it wasn't selling well.

(sigh) Wouldn't it be great if, just once in a while, someone on the internet who makes a dumb assertion and has it proved wrong with statistics and comon sense could just admit they were wrong? Doesn't have to be a public self-flagellation, just something like "Hey guys, looks like I was wrong about this movie. It's not my thing, but I'm glad you got another decent-to-great superhero movie to enjoy."

I wonder when I started to regard that sort of response (rather than digging in and breaking out fresh conspiracy theories) as something rare and exceptional on the internet?

 Elemental wrote:
I wonder when I started to regard that sort of response (rather than digging in and breaking out fresh conspiracy theories) as something rare and exceptional on the internet?

The 1990s?

I wonder when I started to regard that sort of response (rather than digging in and breaking out fresh conspiracy theories) as something rare and exceptional on the internet?

Well I was proven correct in everything I said on the matter.

Brie larson would upset people if not kept in check by the studio, she did

"Fat chance" of this movie failing due to the momentum behind it

some people did not like the marketing of the film for a multitude of reasons, however the political marketing campaign seems to have worked just like it did with black panther, but has alienated an unknown number of the fanbase, I am interested in seeing the repercussions of this from both marvel and the fan base.

RT was caught mucking with the audience score on a live stream, so no longer a conspiracy theory, proven fact, the part that is up for debate it for what reason, since allegedly two disney execs have admitted to having RT monkey with the score, I have yet to find a reliable source for this though.



The critics lied about the movie on political grounds, its right there on RT critic reviews, this one is undeniable anymore

Other critics have admitted to the "access journalism" that we all know goes on and gave it good reviews to maintain that access

there was no pre movie review bomb, the want to see meter was messed with on both ends and eventually removed.

there was no campaign to review bomb the film since when RT removed 50k reviews, the score changed by 4%, now the film sits at a justifiable 62%

RT has zero credibility anymore due to its actions, not that it had much anyway.

So pretty much everything I said would happen, happened, now watch this space for star wars IX, the same thing will happen again, its all pretty interesting to watch at times.

Mega corporation has/does PR.

Jeepers !

has alienated an unknown number of the fanbase

 AduroT wrote:
Wouldn’t it make sense that a more popular movie would have a larger Monday drop anyways since there were more people seeing it initially? Like it’s hard to have a big drop if you didn’t have big numbers to start with.

Shhhh, that defeats the whole purpose of their nonsense.

 reds8n wrote:
Mega corporation has/does PR.

Jeepers !

has alienated an unknown number of the fanbase

Yeah, I say unknown simply because its too early to tell, It will be a cold day in hell before it affects end game but after that I have no idea.

Ah the legendarily effective boycott of a thing after you've paid to see it.

and the follow up.


60% of the time, it works every time.

Did it really alienate people? Did it really really?

Because all I saw was a few people with bees in their pretty floral bonnets sufficiently ‘outraged’ at an opinion they didn’t agree with flail blindly on a third party website.

And how is it too early to tell? Is it’s global box office take so far of $594,642,933, after 9 days, somehow inconclusive of its performance?

Same old, same old.

A minority of very vocal people who can’t cope with the fact that some celebrities have opinions they disagree with. I’d put money on the fact that the vast majority of the movie going public were completely oblivious to the manufactured outrage of a few people getting all SJW about Brie Larson’s “racism”.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Did it really alienate people? Did it really really?

Because all I saw was a few people with bees in their pretty floral bonnets sufficiently ‘outraged’ at an opinion they didn’t agree with flail blindly on a third party website.

And how is it too early to tell? Is it’s global box office take so far of $594,642,933, after 9 days, somehow inconclusive of its performance?

Yes it absolutely did, but it still made buckets of money, these things are not mutually exclusive as your likely aware, how many people we will never know, this film may have broke the 1 billion mark for all we know had it not alienated parts of the fan base, but now we are dealing in hypotheticals "shrug"

For me the movie was exactly as I expected, overt political tones, bad acting which I blame on bad direction, bad cuts, bad plot and story, wooden brie Larson (again blaming the director for that), retconned the MCU, not enough jackson, too much exposition, long story short it was a run of the mill origin story, average at best but still better than most of the DCEU, it will be forgotten in a few years when all the hub bub dies down.

BUT the Russo brothers are handling end game, I honestly have a lot of hope they can make captain marvel work and by extension brie Larson.

Has anyone noticed that the same people who get pissed when celebrities have opinions that make them go all "ahhh SJWs!" are also the people who go "Everyone in the world is so sensitive these days and you gotta watch what you say or you will offend their delicate sensibilities".

The irony.

Would you have had a problem with the movie having “overt political tones” had it been politics you agreed with I wonder?

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Same old, same old.

A minority of very vocal people who can’t cope with the fact that some celebrities have opinions they disagree with. I’d put money on the fact that the vast majority of the movie going public were completely oblivious to the manufactured outrage of a few people getting all SJW about Brie Larson’s “racism”.

And you'd win that bet, this is likely why Disney went into damage control to stop this outrage from spilling over into the real world and negatively impacting the movie.

It also didn't have overt political tones. It told that characters story. In the same way that IM 2 was based heavily on Armor Wars and Demon in a Bottle, bit's and pieces of all the things in Captain Marvel reflected stories Carol Danvers has been in.



Paying proper homage to the characters actual stories isn't being a political vessel.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Would you have had a problem with the movie having “overt political tones” had it been politics you agreed with I wonder?

Absolutely, I watch certain movies for certain reasons, pointing out that it has overt political tones does not state whether I agree with them or not, they are there, on the whole it's how it's done that matters to me, I look at ruffalo who is a horrible bigot and seperate him from his work, I do the same for Chris evans who is just an idiot, same with brie Larson, I don't like these 3 people for different reasons but I can still enjoy the characters they portray, brie's mistake was her comment about using the film for activism, that blurs the line, so when a writer inserts these political biases into a film, stupid people will blame brie, I blame the producer, writer, director and marketing for doing a bad job of it, and brie for her own comments, not the movies, I also don't hold her responsible for the bad acting, it's the directors job to get a good scene out of these people, that's why I have hope that she will do well in end game, Russo brothers are excellent

If you don’t want ‘overt political tones’, may I suggest that Marvel may not in fact be the company for you?

Because, y’know. It’s all pretty political in origin.

 Lance845 wrote:
It also didn't have overt political tones. It told that characters story. In the same way that IM 2 was based heavily on Armor Wars and Demon in a Bottle, bit's and pieces of all the things in Captain Marvel reflected stories Carol Danvers has been in.

Spoiler:

She has been used by people as a weapon. She has had her mind messed with. She did get her powers from a Kree device that blew up while Yon Rogg was there. She did have a relationship with Mar Vell that made him/her the most important person in the world to her. The Kree/Skrull war is a thing.

Paying proper homage to the characters actual stories isn't being a political vessel.

And which version are you using of the 8? The one where carol danvers was only captain marvel in an alternate reality then when everything went back to normal she decided she wanted that life and eventually became captain marvel? Or one of the other 7, it's hard to keep up with her story, not anywhere near as bad as X-Men mind you.... That is a headache to follow!

Also, as for the billion dollar take?

It’s still only been out for 9 days. Forbes and others are expecting it to breach £1bn during its theatrical run.

Ergo, it didn’t alienate anyone? Certainly not of any significant number.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If you don’t want ‘overt political tones’, may I suggest that Marvel may not in fact be the company for you?

Because, y’know. It’s all pretty political in origin.

So sayeth the people who only read the wikis and have never read the actual comics, marvel has always done a good job of showing both sides, the MCU showed neither and stayed out of it for the most part, a good thing in this day and age.

As for the comics, that's a totally different problems right now, the whole industry is on its way out sadly, choose your poison for the reason.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also, as for the billion dollar take?

It’s still only been out for 9 days. Forbes and others are expecting it to breach £1bn during its theatrical run.

Ergo, it didn’t alienate anyone? Certainly not of any significant number.

We simply cannot know dude, like I said it could have hit the billion dollar mark already but that's dealing in hypotheticals, all we can do is take people at face value and say it did have an impact, to what extent we just cannot know.

Formosa, it seems like your definition of a “horrible” person is anyone with political views you disagree with. I think you’ve derailed this thread long enough.

 Formosa wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
It also didn't have overt political tones. It told that characters story. In the same way that IM 2 was based heavily on Armor Wars and Demon in a Bottle, bit's and pieces of all the things in Captain Marvel reflected stories Carol Danvers has been in.

Spoiler:

She has been used by people as a weapon. She has had her mind messed with. She did get her powers from a Kree device that blew up while Yon Rogg was there. She did have a relationship with Mar Vell that made him/her the most important person in the world to her. The Kree/Skrull war is a thing.

Paying proper homage to the characters actual stories isn't being a political vessel.

And which version are you using of the 8? The one where carol danvers was only captain marvel in an alternate reality then when everything went back to normal she decided she wanted that life and eventually became captain marvel? Or one of the other 7, it's hard to keep up with her story, not anywhere near as bad as X-Men mind you.... That is a headache to follow!

Thats not the point. The point is that Iron Man in the movies is not Iron Man in the comics. Demon In a Bottle was not 100% accurate adapted to film. Neither was Armor Wars. But the THEMES of those stories and little elements of it were put into the movie. Tony is an alcoholic in the comics. He had poladium poisoning in the movie. But in both he attempts to push all his friends away and spiral into a suicidal end with Rhodey taking over as Iron Man (Warmachine) and someone else he trusts taking over his company. Bits and pieces of the story happen for different reasons while the base theme carried through the adaptation.


We don't need to story to be carol was in an alternate reality. We just need themes to carry over and major points to hit so their repercussions can help define the character. This movie adapted major elements of her past that help define her in the exact same way that any marvel movie has adapted elements of every other characters stories.


Being upset that those elements were in Captain Marvel is like being upset that Jessica Jones was feminist propaganda because you think it's pushing some kind of feminist man hating agenda when EVERY single male character in season 1 either was working for the male bad guy willingly or not, or a psycho that attacked the 2 main women when he roided out AND shes a rape victim.

No.... Thats just those characters stories adapted to TV. Doing something different wouldn't be telling those characters stories.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Formosa, it seems like your definition of a “horrible” person is anyone with political views you disagree with. I think you’ve derailed this thread long enough.

Who says I disagree with their political views, if I posted some of the things ruffalo has said on here I would get an instant ban, I also don't like bullies so I think he and Evans are horrible people, larsons words are deplorable, so I think that she is a horrible person, don't hate any of them though, nobody is perfect after all

How many MCU films broke $1,000,000,000?

Let’s have a look, eh?

Over their entire theatrical release, it’s Avengers Assemble, Iron Man 3, Avengers Age Of Ultron, Captain America Civil War, Black Panther and Avengers Infinity War.

So, six. Out of 21 movies. Again. Captain Marvel is only on its 9th day of theatrical release. Did you really expect it to have hit $1bn already? Or is just the new flog you’ve chosen for your dead horse, given the evidence is pretty conclusive that the sad acts claiming they didn’t want to see it have had precisely sod all affect on its take?

If this was the end of its theatrical run, you may have had a point. But it’s not, is it? We’re not even close to that point at the time of writing (Sunday 17th March 2019, for ease of reference for generations to come).

It’s first week drop off, as already covered, is nothing to write home about. And it’s still top of the box office for it.

 Formosa wrote:

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Formosa, it seems like your definition of a “horrible” person is anyone with political views you disagree with. I think you’ve derailed this thread long enough.

Who says I disagree with their political views, if I posted some of the things ruffalo has said on here I would get an instant ban, I also don't like bullies so I think he and Evans are horrible people, larsons words are deplorable, so I think that she is a horrible person, don't hate any of them though, nobody is perfect after all

Yeah, ok. Whatever. I’m moving on now.

Also, I have to laugh at the idea that Captain Marvel is "overtly political". Maybe it's political for the 4chan/incel types and their bizarre war on women not having sex with them and admitting their obvious inferiority, but for everyone else? Hardly. It doesn't really comment on any current political issues, endorse any political parties, etc. It's just a straightforward origin story MCU movie.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
How many MCU films broke $1,000,000,000?

Let’s have a look, eh?

Over their entire theatrical release, it’s Avengers Assemble, Iron Man 3, Avengers Age Of Ultron, Captain America Civil War, Black Panther and Avengers Infinity War.

So, six. Out of 21 movies. Again. Captain Marvel is only on its 9th day of theatrical release. Did you really expect it to have hit $1bn already? Or is just the new flog you’ve chosen for your dead horse, given the evidence is pretty conclusive that the sad acts claiming they didn’t want to see it have had precisely sod all affect on its take?

If this was the end of its theatrical run, you may have had a point. But it’s not, is it? We’re not even close to that point at the time of writing (Sunday 17th March 2019, for ease of reference for generations to come).

It’s first week drop off, as already covered, is nothing to write home about. And it’s still top of the box office for it.

How many marvel movies have used this kind of marketing, 1 and this one, the last one was black panther and broke a billion and rightfully so, I honestly expected this film to break a billion and still kind of do, I dont buy into that 72% drop off narrative, give it a couple of weeks and I think we may see it, I just expected it to happen much faster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Also, I have to laugh at the idea that Captain Marvel is "overtly political". Maybe it's political for the 4chan/incel types and their bizarre war on women not having sex with them and admitting their obvious inferiority, but for everyone else? Hardly. It doesn't really comment on any current political issues, endorse any political parties, etc. It's just a straightforward origin story MCU movie.

.... thats bait lol, go troll somewhere else peregrine

 Formosa wrote:
.... thats bait lol, go troll somewhere else peregrine

Ah yes, a challenge to back up one's claims about the movie being political is definitely "bait" and must be refused. It's much better to be vague about how the movie is objectionable so nobody can disprove any of your claims.

It’s. Nine. Days. Into. It’s. Theatrical. Run.

Nine days. Not nine weeks. Not nine months. Days.

How long was Black Panther’s theatrical release? 25 weeks.... The linked website even provides an interesting weekly breakdown.

Nine days. Nine days Captain Marvel has been out. Expecting it to hit £1bn in that time seems....well, frankly, deliberately ridiculous. As if you’re so determined to show the sad act brigade had an impact that you’ll just keep on shifting the goalposts.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
It’s. Nine. Days. Into. It’s. Theatrical. Run.

Nine days. Not nine weeks. Not nine months. Days.

How long was Black Panther’s theatrical release? 25 weeks.... The linked website even provides an interesting weekly breakdown.

Nine days. Nine days Captain Marvel has been out. Expecting it to hit £1bn in that time seems....well, frankly, deliberately ridiculous. As if you’re so determined to show the sad act brigade had an impact that you’ll just keep on shifting the goalposts.

Did you miss the part where I agreed with you and admitted i was wrong dude ?

I expected something to happen, it did not, ergo i was wrong to expect that, I then went on to say i expect to hit that mark given more time, come on man i am not trying to be argumentative here.

Formosa wrote:

Thats not the point. The point is that Iron Man in the movies is not Iron Man in the comics. Demon In a Bottle was not 100% accurate adapted to film. Neither was Armor Wars. But the THEMES of those stories and little elements of it were put into the movie. Tony is an alcoholic in the comics. He had poladium poisoning in the movie. But in both he attempts to push all his friends away and spiral into a suicidal end with Rhodey taking over as Iron Man (Warmachine) and someone else he trusts taking over his company. Bits and pieces of the story happen for different reasons while the base theme carried through the adaptation.

Yep all fair enough.

We don't need to story to be carol was in an alternate reality. We just need themes to carry over and major points to hit so their repercussions can help define the character. This movie adapted major elements of her past that help define her in the exact same way that any marvel movie has adapted elements of every other characters stories.

I never said we did, I was asking which version you were talking about, since the 8 versions are all quite different from each other, it adapted major elements of some versions, but not others, so again, which one are we talking about?

Being upset that those elements were in Captain Marvel is like being upset that Jessica Jones was feminist propaganda because you think it's pushing some kind of feminist man hating agenda when EVERY single male character in season 1 either was working for the male bad guy willingly or not, or a psycho that attacked the 2 main women when he roided out AND shes a rape victim.

false equivalence, they are completely different stories, Jessica jones is a much more personal story and bloody well done, captain marvel is not even remotely like that (movie), I wanted a good movie, I paid to see a good movie, I did not get a good movie, so that is reason enough to not be happy, I have come to expect a certain level of skill and storytelling from the MCU, I didnt get that with this film, if you did, cool, no worries.

No.... Thats just those characters stories adapted to TV. Doing something different wouldn't be telling those characters stories.

Nobody has made that argument, I simply asked you which version you were talking about.

You are completely missing the point. The POINT of all of that story adaptation stuff is this..

Peregrine wrote:Also, I have to laugh at the idea that Captain Marvel is "overtly political". Maybe it's political for the 4chan/incel types and their bizarre war on women not having sex with them and admitting their obvious inferiority, but for everyone else? Hardly. It doesn't really comment on any current political issues, endorse any political parties, etc. It's just a straightforward origin story MCU movie.

YOU have said that Captain Marvel is pushing some kind of political agenda and you don't like it. What I was saying is that it's not political. It's just an adaptation of Captain Marvel stories. WHICH stories or WHAT versions don't matter. Asking is pointless. They grabbed the stories they wanted to make the character they wanted portrayed and they streamlined and portrayed it. Thats not a political statement. It's telling the stories of that character. You didn't like it? Good. Fine. Like what you like. Calling it a political agenda? Nice tin foil hat.

Someone bought me a ticket.

I watched it.

It was... not very good. It felt generic, boring, lazy, and the pacing just felt like it had no 'flow' at all. It's kind of like what I'd expect from Syfy original pictures if they had a bigger budget.

I had to keep giving myself reality checks to come to terms with the fact that this was a real movie happening in a real movie theater.

People were text messaging and playing with their phones during the movie. No one cared at all. It felt like a dumb lazy Sunday afternoon flick on cable, and I honestly think it would have been more interesting if it had commercials.

I'm not saying it was "bad". It's not a "bad movie". It's just not a "good movie".

This would have maybe worked as a Netflix series- maybe, and even then, I'd have probably gotten bored with it and stopped watching.

My friend that bought the ticket is a Superhero junkie, and he bought the ticket- which I gratefully accepted because it was a friendly gesture. But what said something to me was that when we walked out after the movie, the first thing he said to me was "I'm sorry man, let me make it up to you". I hadn't made a complaint or shown any disinterest at all, I was raised to be grateful for a gift and be polite. But-

Let me make that very clear: The guy that bought this ticket for me by his own choice, drove to my house to get me, and even got my popcorn and soda- he apologized to me for this movie.

The movie wasn't what I'd call 'political', it was just... lazy tropes. The 'sexism' that she experienced was so brainless and milquetoast, it was just outright disappointing- the kind of 'sexism' that is just above the kind of sexism you'd see in a children's cartoon on Nick Jr.. If it were 'racism', it'd have probably just been a random redneck hanging out his pickup truck yelling a random and mild ethnic slur every 20 minutes... but that might have actually been funnier.

At the end of the day, a lot of people are a bit miffed about Brie Larsen. She apparently threw shade at 'the white males', as I'm told, and I'm not sure that's what actually happened but if it is- that's kinda stupid, considering that this entire genre of entertainment has been financially propped up by white males, because whether you like it or not- white males are the economic powerhouse in the United States.

Well, I know how this whole silly controversy marketing thing works and generally speaking, any time a mediocre thing comes out (and trust me, they know when it's gonna be mediocre)- a few people will say "that kinda looks dumb", and suddenly the usual media suspects are "THE ALT RITE BOOTIEBUTT HITLER INCEL MAGA BIGGITS ARE ATTACKING THE THING!". Yeah, that's called 'poisoning the well' and it's a cheap way to shut down legitimate criticism, and anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can see right through it.

So let me get this straight, suddenly- after Wonder Woman, which was pretty popular and awesome, all these 'woman hating incels' manifested out of the aether. They "bombed" reviews, which weren't actually reviews but they were people answering "Do you want to see this movie" honestly. Oh, and we should give credibility to a 'movie review site' that is owned by a company that sells movie tickets, and not see it as an elaborate hype machine.

Final thoughts- there's people attacking the movie for exaggerated dumb reasons, those people are dumb. Also, there's people praising this as BEST MOVIE EVER MADE and come on, that's also dumb and they're dumb.

This movie is... 'eh'.

Save your money. Buy some drugs or something fun instead.

Show me on the doll where the movie touched you?

I enjoyed the film. Fun, great addition to the MCU.

I also enjoyed how the massive opening of the movie has destroyed the "get woke go broke"-spouting idiots. Well, should have, but now they'll probably watch a pirate copy and claim it was 'objectively bad' or somesuch nonsense... sigh.

This was one of my least favorite Marvel movies. The side characters and the humor are there, but the film is very weak in structure, coherency of themes, and development of the main character. Hopefully the Russo Bros will have a more interesting take.

My wife was psyched after the film and wants to see it again, though, so it did something right.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Show me on the doll where the movie touched you?

Right on the penis. Directly there, on my penis. Just all over the penis, from the base of the shaft, down to my tip. The doll doesn't have a penis, so I'm going to add one. A really, really big one. Bigger than yours. It's going to be bigger than the doll, so big it'll probably need its own penis as well. I'm using green stuff, then I'm going to paint it Blanchitsu style with two colors, let my shades pool, throw some dirt on it, and then title it "One Night in Bangkok".

That's a silly response to a silly response.

You know people can like and dislike things, and it doesn't mean they've been hurt, scarred, offended, or rubbed the wrong way. The fact that people are treating this movie in such a way where liking it or disliking it is some kind of activism on par with supporting gay marriage is fundamentally part of the reason that some people are avoiding it like it's, well.... like it's a Blanchitsu painted dick some weirdo stuck to a doll.

Exalted for making me laugh.