Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There isn’t a race issue in CM. Samuel L. Jackson is awesome as usual. He’s not a hardened leader of SHIELD yet, but he believes in his job and he thinks outside the box. I think anyone suggesting SLJ getting used as a “token black guy” would get a serious stink eye and a “who the feth do you think you are” from SLJ himself.

You should watch the episode of Extras with Samuel L. Jackson in it.

 Vulcan wrote:
So long as Portman doesn't come out and say "This movie's not for white guys' I don't see a problem.

In the end, that was the only real problem with Captain Marvel, as far as gender goes. Yes, the women of the story do pretty much everything with no significant help from the men, but we've seen plenty of other movies where the men do pretty much everything with no significant help from women and there's no comment at all. This is no different.

There IS a noticeable RACE issue in Captain Marvel - Nick Fury being used as token comic relief black guy, not quite the worst racist stereotype, but still noticeably bad - but that's neither here nor there with Thor.

Loved Cap Marvel.

I don't think it idid or indeed should matter what colour the out of his depth Gov Agent was - a younger Everett K. Ross could have been there and done the same stuff. Was the latter character in Black Panther a problem? Not to me.

Isn;t the whole point - It could have been white/black./man/woman in the role and been the same. Its not like they got SLJ to do a jar Jar Binks comedy routine.

Guess I must’ve hallucinated Monica and Maria Rambeau.

 Vulcan wrote:
So long as Portman doesn't come out and say "This movie's not for white guys' I don't see a problem.

In the end, that was the only real problem with Captain Marvel, as far as gender goes.

That wasn't a problem with the film, either. That was a comment specifically directed at wanting more diversity at press events and wasn't " not for white males" even by the broadest stretch.

There isn't even a reason to bring it up here at all.

 Vulcan wrote:
So long as Portman doesn't come out and say "This movie's not for white guys' I don't see a problem.

In the end, that was the only real problem with Captain Marvel, as far as gender goes. Yes, the women of the story do pretty much everything with no significant help from the men, but we've seen plenty of other movies where the men do pretty much everything with no significant help from women and there's no comment at all. This is no different.

There IS a noticeable RACE issue in Captain Marvel - Nick Fury being used as token comic relief black guy, not quite the worst racist stereotype, but still noticeably bad - but that's neither here nor there with Thor.

but isn't saying daft clickbaity YT buzzy things part of the standard MCU contract for lady hero's these days ?

Starting to think there is degree of engineered Ersatz wokeness that the squeaky wheels are either too stupid to spot or are, more likely, happy to play along with for the clicks, see Batwoman trailer which did its best to hide the 'its just like all the other Ceedubs' via this method

Anyone see the movie Evolution?

There was one black male character in the movie. His entire role was to have every. single. awkward and embarrasing thing in the movie happen to HIM instead of to a white character.

Nick Fury played the same role in Captain Marvel. His whole purpose was to be the butt of every joke so none of the other characters would have to suffer the indignity of being laughed at.

What SLJ wanted or expected or even performed in of the role is irrelevant. The film that hit the screen made him token comic relief black guy. Whether done in the script, by the actor, or in the editing room is irrelevant.

SLJ plays hardened badass in future films, gets lighter film before he goes grimdark, has fun with role, internet knight decides “token black guy role” for one of the most badass actors out there. Did I get everything, or did I miss something?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
SLJ plays hardened badass in future films, gets lighter film before he goes grimdark, has fun with role, internet knight decides “token black guy role” for one of the most badass actors out there. Did I get everything, or did I miss something?

Just that different people can apparently see different things in a movie.

 Vulcan wrote:
Anyone see the movie Evolution?

There was one black male character in the movie. His entire role was to have every. single. awkward and embarrasing thing in the movie happen to HIM instead of to a white character.

Nick Fury played the same role in Captain Marvel. His whole purpose was to be the butt of every joke so none of the other characters would have to suffer the indignity of being laughed at.

What SLJ wanted or expected or even performed in of the role is irrelevant. The film that hit the screen made him token comic relief black guy. Whether done in the script, by the actor, or in the editing room is irrelevant.

Wow thats nothing like I saw in Evolutuon - which is a wonderfully fun comedy imo

Pretty much everyone is laughed at in the show, yeah bad things happen to Orlando Jones but so do they to other people. Seann William Scott is repeatedly laughed at by the others - including Jones, and Jones also takes the piss out of Julieanne Moore's character a fair bit

Again I never thought about the colour of his skin when I watched the film - and it would have made no difference if he was white for me.

but if thats what you saw in the two films fair enough

 Vulcan wrote:
Anyone see the movie Evolution?

There was one black male character in the movie. His entire role was to have every. single. awkward and embarrasing thing in the movie happen to HIM instead of to a white character.

Nick Fury played the same role in Captain Marvel. His whole purpose was to be the butt of every joke so none of the other characters would have to suffer the indignity of being laughed at.

What SLJ wanted or expected or even performed in of the role is irrelevant. The film that hit the screen made him token comic relief black guy. Whether done in the script, by the actor, or in the editing room is irrelevant.

Kinda like how Finn in the current Star Wars Trilogy has been turned into something of a joke character. He did maybe two heroic things in both movies combined and in each they had comic results. One with the tie fighter and Poe and the 2nd with the heroic sacrifice turned into the 'lulz not really' from Rose Tico. I feel bad for Rose's actress and all but man Rose just really bugged me preventing that heroic sacrifice which should've led to everybody in the Resistance dying. God i hate Rose for that. She's the Jar Jar Binks of the New Trilogy.

-------

As far as Thor goes i don't fully care about the movie. Two thors could be interesting since Hemsworth Thor is off with the Guardians of the Galaxy. The main marvel series i feel most interested in now are Deadpool, maybe Ant-Man (haven't seen any but i liked him in 'The Avengers' movie) and GotG. I'm not sure what else to go for. Scarlet Witch could be interesting and maybe Black Widow.

Also before i get hit with any -isms (which is highly likely) i'd like to say that i don't like Brie Larson as Captain Marvel. I heard the character is supposed to be kind of emotionless but it just sucks as a main character. I mean lots of people can have charisma or personality or something to make them like-able in any form. With her at least in acting she seems boring and emotionless and not very expressive. It's like somebody took Hillary Clinton, Ben Stein and Al Gore and mixed their charisma into one entity.

I'd imagine Natalie Portman would probably do a significantly better job than Brie's Captain Marvel. Yes i know Captain Marvel put butts in seats or at least got ticket sales. For what it's worth Transformers and the Star Wars Prequels also made a ton of money. As i've heard from others how much a movie sells doesn't equal quality. Of course money is the end goal so i guess they got what they wanted. I honestly think it's more the brand at this point (Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, etc.) but maybe the general public is willing to see big dumb action movies and quality is a lesser concern. That said Justice League did poorly, as did ghostbusters (2016) and from what i heard Ocean's 7 so maybe Brand isn't everything. I dunno i guess we'll just have to wait and see.

-------

For what it's worth i try my best to avoid putting criticism into a movie i don't want to see esp. if politics is involved in some shape or form. I made an exception this time because i fell for the political bait i guess but throwing my 2 cents in while remaining only slightly political is probably the best route.

Sounds fun, I can't wait to see what my favorite director does with this. As we don't really have a strong cast anymore from the previous films as Hulk is gone, Loki is missing, and Thor and Valk are the only real people left of the original Re-avengers. Having someone who thor has known come back to him but being different is really nice and a nice hand-off. There always has to be a Thor. And having a new character that has new paths is really nice and fun.

Plus I hope they go with her original run of jane foster, or a mix of both to flesh out the character. MCU can walk that fine line.

I am really hoping we see Mutants come out in STrange's series or the arrival of new villains and characters.

I want to see Jane foster in costume and I want my little nieces to have someone they can look up to.

I think with Tati directing will hopefully be another successful sequel.

Plus I would love to know who the thor villian will be and I hope. I REALLY HOPE, that it is someone that everyone has been waiting for : Midgard Serpent, Maybe the return of Hela? Maybe Seth? Maybe Mephisto? Fafnir? Who knows at this point I am up for any villian that is interesting and has a unique aesthetic that makes them different from the others. I would love to see thor finally come to terms and become the king we all want him to be, and for Jane to take the mantle of thor.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I'm a little confused, honestly. Like, is she just getting the powers of thor transferred to her? I think in the original comics the powers were transferred through nothing but the hammer, but that's not how the movies work so far.

In the comics, there is the person (Thor Odinson) who has traditionally held the office of Thor, which is granted to those worthy enough to lift Mjolnir. In the comics something happens to cause Thor to become unworthy, at which point he can no longer lift the hammer himself, and the office of Thor is briefly vacant. Jane Foster is worthy of lifting Mjolnir, and when she does so, assumes the office and power of Thor - typically referred to as The Mighty Thor. Thor Odinson continues to exist, still has the powers of an Asgardian, and his adventures run parallel to Janes - he wieled the axe Jarnbjorn, which he had before he gained Mjolnir during this time period.

In the comics, here are other people who have proven worthy of lifting the hammer as assuming the powers and office of Thor, so there is nothing new or unusual about this; an alien was able to wield the hammer and gain the power of Thor back in 1983, as have others.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Unless it's just a genderbent reboot, which doesn't make much sense as thor is going to still be in it.

It's not at all. They are two distinctly different people who approach what they do in very different ways. If they follow the comics, what would make sense would be Jane lifting the hammer, becoming The Mighty Thor, and acting as Thor while Thor Odinson goes across the galaxy with the GOTG, doing Thor Odinson stuff.

But it works differently in the MCU for sure though - neither the VIsion nor Steve Rogers became Thor when they lifted the hammer, to what I saw. So, I don't really know what they are going to do. Your next point makes it even less clear as to how this is going to actually happen, logistically:

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
Also, didn't the hammer get destroyed and they had to return the time traveled one?

Mr Morden wrote:Yeah your so edgy and inaccurate - have a point.

Well at least my comment is about the thread topic - its not just whining, defending crap acting and directing or ranting about vegans.

Maybe think about an actual contribution to the thread next time mate.

Oh, you mean the part of my post you cut when you quoted me?

 Asherian Command wrote:
There always has to be a Thor.

The line is hilarious to me now. Sure, “There must always be a Thor.” was a nice little catchphrase the first time. Then original Thor got his hammer back and Jane lost the power. Then Valkyrie died, and she’s like “There must always be a Valkyrie.” and takes that name up instead. I’m waiting for down the line when she’s pouring gasoline over her head, “There must always be a Ghost Rider.”

I am curious how the movie will do this story. No hammer to pass off. Thor recovering from his depression and still feeling worthy. Will Nat play Lady Thor, or only Jane? In the comics is a whole body transformation so the two parts could easily be two different actors. I hated the first eight issues of Lady Thor, but it got much better after that and her side appearances have been good.

 Just Tony wrote:

Mr Morden wrote:Yeah your so edgy and inaccurate - have a point.

Well at least my comment is about the thread topic - its not just whining, defending crap acting and directing or ranting about vegans.

Maybe think about an actual contribution to the thread next time mate.

Oh, you mean the part of my post you cut when you quoted me?

I am glad we agree most of your statement was purile and pointess.

s far as Thor goes i don't fully care about the movie. Two thors could be interesting since Hemsworth Thor is off with the Guardians of the Galaxy. The main marvel series i feel most interested in now are Deadpool, maybe Ant-Man (haven't seen any but i liked him in 'The Avengers' movie) and GotG. I'm not sure what else to go for. Scarlet Witch could be interesting and maybe Black Widow.

I'd imagine Natalie Portman would probably do a significantly better job than Brie's Captain Marvel. Yes i know Captain Marvel put butts in seats or at least got ticket sales. For what it's worth Transformers and the Star Wars Prequels also made a ton of money. As i've heard from others how much a movie sells doesn't equal quality. Of course money is the end goal so i guess they got what they wanted. I honestly think it's more the brand at this point (Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel, etc.) but maybe the general public is willing to see big dumb action movies and quality is a lesser concern. That said Justice League did poorly, as did ghostbusters (2016) and from what i heard Ocean's 7 so maybe Brand isn't everything. I dunno i guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Movies and performance is subjective - Far rather watch more Black Panther, Cap Marvel or Avengers than Guardians and never want to see Deadpool. However the (As)Guardians could be more fun

One of the constant defences of the (a film you mentioned before Just Tony starts whining) Last Jedi was that it made money so I would agree with you to a point....however many big Dumn movies" are often better written for their audiance than those that critics spend so much time and effort aclaiming.

I think Natalie Portman is a great opportunity and looking forward to seeing what they give her to work with beyond a big hammer

 AduroT wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
There always has to be a Thor.

The line is hilarious to me now. Sure, “There must always be a Thor.” was a nice little catchphrase the first time. Then original Thor got his hammer back and Jane lost the power. Then Valkyrie died, and she’s like “There must always be a Valkyrie.” and takes that name up instead. I’m waiting for down the line when she’s pouring gasoline over her head, “There must always be a Ghost Rider.”

Man, if that got us the Ghost Rider movie this city needs, I'd be totally game for that. I don't understand how such a awesome character can be so consistely and abjectly bungled.

 AduroT wrote:

I am curious how the movie will do this story. No hammer to pass off. Thor recovering from his depression and still feeling worthy. Will Nat play Lady Thor, or only Jane? In the comics is a whole body transformation so the two parts could easily be two different actors.

I have been doing a big think about this since the news dropped. Using a different body for Thor as opposed to Jane Foster would work well from a storytelling perspective: someone stereotypically buff as Thor, like Katee Sackhoff, and then Natalie Portman just portrays Jane Foster. Visually, this is the most accurate to the comic.

Realistically though there is no way you shell out A-list-oscar-winning-actress-money just to have her do voiceovers for most of the movie; not when you can have her do the whole role and CGI up her emaciated cancer ridden scenes. And when has the MCU cared about slavish devotion to the comics?

 Ouze wrote:


But it works differently in the MCU for sure though - neither the VIsion nor Steve Rogers became Thor when they lifted the hammer, to what I saw. So, I don't really know what they are going to do.

They didn't in the comics either. I can't speak to the more recent stuff, but the first time Cap picks up the hammer was in a really random fight (may well have been against mole people or something), that was basically built around having that moment, and the ostensible plot was pure gibber.
Edit: it wasn't mole people. It was 1988 and some Egyptian gods popped up to punch Thor in the face, conveniently in the Avengers Mansion. Cap smacked some people around with it and gave it back to Thor in the space of a couple pages.

Generally the people who 'became Thor' (at least in the early days) didn't just pick up the hammer and swing it around (even the Hulk does that at some point, iirc). They take some action to channel the power (usually slamming an end of its 'false form' on the ground) in a very He-man sort of way (long before there was a He-man).

 Vulcan wrote:

Nick Fury played the same role in Captain Marvel. His whole purpose was to be the butt of every joke so none of the other characters would have to suffer the indignity of being laughed at.

Thinking of moments that made me smile in CM, I'm coming up with:

--The "Captain Trouble" nickname for the kid.
--Various fish out of water jokes aimed at Carol and the Skrull characters.
--The jerk at the internet cafe getting his motorcycle trashed.
--The resolution of the final confrontation between Carol and Yon-Rogg.
--The nerf gun gag in the fight on the space station.

Seems like a bit of a reach to say that Fury was the only character to have jokes made at his expense (he got some laughs from being serious in the face of absurd situations, or from his own dry humour, but that's not the same thing).

 Mr Morden wrote:
Sounds good -

https://news.sky.com/story/natalie-portman-to-play-female-version-of-thor-in-upcoming-marvel-film-11767474

Female Thor? She better hit the gym and get her hands on some steroids to do the role justice. Another option would be cgi but then they could do a cartoon and don't bother at all with the movie.

Again. This seemingly pencilled in to follow, and italics for affect Dr Strange in The Multiverse of Madness.

Now, us Nerds are aware of the Multiverse concept from Marvel. It’s been a staple for Marvel and DC for a long time. A way to reinterpret, without a retcon. A new strand for new writers and artists to explore.

Who knows what that bodes for the MCU? Right now, with regards to MCU Jane Foster and Mjolnir, all we know is that Natalie Portman is back, Mjolnir is back, and the two will be together. In some capacity.

We don’t know Jane Foster is becoming Thor. We don’t know what Jane Foster wielding Mjolnir actually means. We don’t know that there won’t be two Thors, or that this must mean the end of Chris Hemsworth tenure.

We don’t even know to what extent the previous comic versions will inform the film. The MCU is very clearly it’s own multiverse reality from the comics.

So. Chill. No conclusions to be jumped to as yet.

Well we do know that given her comments on working with marvel that they must have thrown an ungodly amount of cash at her, or more likely she gets star billing with hemsworth reduced to comedy sidekick duty.

I went back and checked, because I don't remember there being the *attitude" that other people seem to remember around the time she announced she wasn't returning.

The actual quote goes thusly..

As far as I know, I’m done. I mean, I don’t know if maybe one day they’ll ask for an Avengers 7 or whatever, I have no idea. But as far as I know, I’m done. It was a great thing to be a part of.

Not exactly the petulant huff people seem to think. It's tough to read it without emphasis, but heavily implying she might be open to return in the future and calling it a great thing to be part of isn't exactly definitive. Given her failure to appear in End Game it might be easier to attribute a negative context, but that could easily be explained by scheduling conflicts or the fact that she has a young family.

Going purely by what has actually been said by Portman, I think there's every chance she might have been quite happy to return, and any other read on the situation requires a certain amount of assumption.

Backfire wrote:
Any way, comics and cartoons exaggarate so much that it is pretty much impossible to exactly copy physical attributes or mannerisms drawn characters have.

To be fair...... Liefield suck!

Portman seemed serious about intending to bulk up for the part, so I think they're more likely to use a body double for normal Jane than for the Thor version.


God that Liefeld art. In fairness to the guy, he's improved immeasurably since, but I'll never really wash the "parody" version of that image from my mind's eye.

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Sounds good -

https://news.sky.com/story/natalie-portman-to-play-female-version-of-thor-in-upcoming-marvel-film-11767474

[image removed]

Female Thor? She better hit the gym and get her hands on some steroids to do the role justice. Another option would be cgi but then they could do a cartoon and don't bother at all with the movie.

We only had five pages of this conversation so it's good you dived in with the same take.

It's magic.

Backfire wrote:
Any way, comics and cartoons exaggarate so much that it is pretty much impossible to exactly copy physical attributes or mannerisms drawn characters have.

I thought Cris did an amazing job getting into shape for the role myself!

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Sounds good -

https://news.sky.com/story/natalie-portman-to-play-female-version-of-thor-in-upcoming-marvel-film-11767474

Female Thor? She better hit the gym and get her hands on some steroids to do the role justice. Another option would be cgi but then they could do a cartoon and don't bother at all with the movie.

Why is that not a problem for Mark Ruffalo/Hulk - he is fantastic in the role, but is a problem for Natalie/Thor

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Strg Alt wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Sounds good -

https://news.sky.com/story/natalie-portman-to-play-female-version-of-thor-in-upcoming-marvel-film-11767474

Female Thor? She better hit the gym and get her hands on some steroids to do the role justice. Another option would be cgi but then they could do a cartoon and don't bother at all with the movie.

Why is that not a problem for Mark Ruffalo/Hulk - he is fantastic in the role, but is a problem for Natalie/Thor

Don't know his points but i'm guessing it's because The Hulk is a kinda cowardly scientist that turns into a huge muscled mutant that is cgi. For Female Thor i suppose they could have her gain muscles when she grabs the Hammer. I'm not really a Marvel Fan or a comics fan in general but perhaps if they had a bulked out version of her after she grabs the Hammer and less muscled for before. Not sure if cgi would make it look super fake or how they'd do it. I suppose we could wait and see.

I do find it kind of funny to think about whenever someone talks about some 110 lbs, 40+ years old woman beating the crap out of dudes twice her weight though or throwing them like it's nothing (people even mention sarah connor's actress not being physically built or in peak physical condition like she was in T2 and Arnold is just old now even if he is still fairly strong). I mean she's not an MMA fighter and i shouldn't expect her to be but at least Gal Gadot had military and physical training and was believable. I might actually make the point Gal Gadot was practically a god-send to play as wonder woman. I don't think i can imagine any other person as wonder woman anymore.

The difference in my opinion and the one you're commenting is that i think she should at least get CGI muscles in this movie or it'll look awkward for her to carry an over-sized hammer outside of warhammer 40k. I think CGI or a bit of strength training would help. CGI is infinitely better than it used to be.

 Azreal13 wrote:
I went back and checked, because I don't remember there being the *attitude" that other people seem to remember around the time she announced she wasn't returning.

The actual quote goes thusly..

As far as I know, I’m done. I mean, I don’t know if maybe one day they’ll ask for an Avengers 7 or whatever, I have no idea. But as far as I know, I’m done. It was a great thing to be a part of.

Not exactly the petulant huff people seem to think. It's tough to read it without emphasis, but heavily implying she might be open to return in the future and calling it a great thing to be part of isn't exactly definitive. Given her failure to appear in End Game it might be easier to attribute a negative context, but that could easily be explained by scheduling conflicts or the fact that she has a young family.

That and what she could make in a real role, rather than 5-10 minutes of screentime as a backup continuity character in Endgame... I wouldn't blame her for not wanting to do that.
Some of the people who did that in Endgame are newer faces who still have to put the work in. She's not really in that situation anymore, and is well aware that Hollywood can be hard on actresses that take bit parts too often, and leans toward sidelining people early if the machine of casting can get away with it. Holding out for a main character role is good business.