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.

adamsouza wrote:Excited to see it because it is a Marvel movie, or excited because they are a Captain Marvel fan ?

I'm going to watch it because I watch all the Marvel movies and TV series.

The modern Captain Marvel is most famous for being Ms Marvel, who lost her powers to Rogue, of the X-Men. Marvel comics tried and failed to make her a replacement for Captain America, and her movie is being made mostly because of the Avengers cast aging out of their roles and wanting out.

The movie is being made on a modest budget.
The advertising for the movie has been modest.

The preview did not "break the internet". If you don't understand that reference and how it relates to this movie, then trust me that I have better grasp of the situation.

Go on youtube. There are hundreds of videos about the Captain Marvel movie, people want it to do well but no one has high expectations.

I've been a fan of Carol Danvers as long as I've been reading comics, so since about 1979 roundabouts.

While I would have preferred someone else play the character, I was also skeptical of some of the OTHER actors selected for comic roles, so I'll stay optimistic.

And that's just ME.


If you look throughout the history of hero cartoons and video games, Ms. Marvel was constantly on the request list for characters to be brought in. She's also been able to hold solo titles where other characters haven't been able to. Characters SUPPOSEDLY more popular.

You can project as much as you want, but YOU disliking Carol Danvers does NOT equal everyone disliking Carol Danvers.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Change the script. Imagine something you are passionate about, that represents part of your identity that isn't represented elsewhere in mainstream media/culture, and then someone outside of that group gets the opportunity to judge the merits of your special thing. It would be annoying wouldn't it?

The rest aside - this is where a lot of folk take issue with what she said, because no it shouldn't be annoying, not to a reasonable person. And the assertion that it is or should be, that someone's opinion of art has value only insofar as they are personally part of some in-group directly related to that art, is a genuinely dangerous notion as far as I'm concerned.

"Women and minorities aren't adequately represented in the field of film critique." is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable statement.

"How qualified you are to critique something depends on whether you're part of the group the subject of your critique depicts." is a grotesque sentiment, and moreover unless you're willing to be a massive, rampant hypocrite also torpedoes vast swathes of feminist and race-based critiques of mainstream cinema, since by that ridiculous measure a black woman should have nothing to say about a film made for and starring white men.

 Lance845 wrote:
1) Marvel movies have only gotten more competently made with better variety and tone in the last 3ish years.

2) Marvel made everyone give a gak about a racoon that walks like a man and a talking tree.

3) comic sales dont impact movie sales. The movie crowd for marvel movies dont actually give a gak about the comics at all.

4) the % of the movie going population who is paying attention to twitter feeds and gender politics articles is small and insignificant. Most people just go to the movies to watch whatevers on. And at this point people count on marvel for quality.


I think your saying some real dumb gak when you assume this is on track to be the worst.

Agreed (well except I found the Racoon annoying)

It will be another good Marvel film - they have not made a bad one since Cap A 1 IMO.

Lastly - low grossing does not equal bad film, same as high gross does not equal good - truly awful crap like Last Jedi made money

I think a bigger discussion needs to be had on why the first female led Marvel flick is Captain Marvel and not a Black Widow movie?

Because Black Widow sucks? Because the character is hard pressed to carry an entire movie?

 Just Tony wrote:
Because Black Widow sucks? Because the character is hard pressed to carry an entire movie?

Does she - why?

I thought she has been a great character in all the movies - interesting relationship with Hawkweye and family as well as that with Bruce.

Sexy female assassins with problems usually do quite well to get bums on seats

Age of Ultron left a bad taste with the audience with respect to Black Widow. If that was the kind of story that would be told about her, I don't need to see it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Age of Ultron left a bad taste with the audience with respect to Black Widow. If that was the kind of story that would be told about her, I don't need to see it.

Sorry which bit?

 adamsouza wrote:
Captain Marvel being the first Wave 4 movie, but made on a smaller budget than Ant-Man.

No Captain Marvel trailer or panel at SDCC.

Whilst Brie Larson's twitter persona is... counterproductive, I'd dispute these two:

1. Spider-Man: Far From Home is the first Phase 4 movie.
2. There was no Marvel Studios at SDCC. Period. Marvel's keeping everything a secret because they don't want to give away anything for Avengers 4.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Because Black Widow sucks? Because the character is hard pressed to carry an entire movie?

Does she - why?

I thought she has been a great character in all the movies - interesting relationship with Hawkweye and family as well as that with Bruce.

Sexy female assassins with problems usually do quite well to get bums on seats

So long as they only murderise the right wrong people, which they hint at isn't the case at all from Winter Soldier onwards

 Turnip Jedi wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Because Black Widow sucks? Because the character is hard pressed to carry an entire movie?

Does she - why?

I thought she has been a great character in all the movies - interesting relationship with Hawkweye and family as well as that with Bruce.

Sexy female assassins with problems usually do quite well to get bums on seats

So long as they only murderise the right wrong people, which they hint at isn't the case at all from Winter Soldier onwards

Not really - they almost always start of as being pawns of evil organisations that are reformed - so the same as BW. See Nikita, Colombiana, Kill Bill.

Killing Eve on BBC1 at the moment is awesome. Sexy female killers sell.

I thought her back story was trained, quasi brainwashed and mutilated by the KGB as an assassin - did lots of terrible things - and left it to be Agent of Shield. Nothing new in Ultron - in first Avengers film she is clear she has "red in her ledger"

 adamsouza wrote:
I literaly know no one who is excited about Captain Marvel, other than the people payed to be so.

Most people don't know who Captain Marvel is. And how many people were jumping up and down for an Ant-Man movie? Guardians? Dr. Strange? Thor? Iron Man FFS!?!

Marvel has been using 2nd and 3rd tier characters in their movies because that's all they had. It's a testament to their plan and their collective talent that they have taken characters that people either new nothing about (Guardians, Dr. Strange, BP) or characters that were in the popular consciousness but only because of longevity or previous incarnations (Hulk, Captain America) and turned them into household names.

No one is exceited for Captain Marvel? Of course they aren't. That's what this trailer is meant to do.

 adamsouza wrote:
Captain Marvel is like Han Solo/Ghostbusters movie of the Marvel Universe. No one really asked for it, and it could be okay, but they are going burn bridges with a huge portion of the fan base by denouncing any critics of it as sexist, racist, bigoted, etc..

There are two points here:

1. "Nobody asked for it" is a daft comment to make. When Marvel announced Phase 3 it's not like at the end of it people went "Oh wow, this looks great... but who asked for a Captain Marvel movie?". Saying it's like Solo is daft.
2. You are right in that anyone who dares criticise the film will have the "sexist racist hyper-nazi" label thrown at them, but that doesn't make the film bad or making the film bad. It's nothing like the Ghostbusters remake, which was a tired attempt at pandering to a demographic that didn't exist in large enough numbers to justify its existence.

 adamsouza wrote:
Captain Marvel is on track to be the lowest grossing Marvel movie to date.

And you can provide tracking numbers this early, can you? You'd be the first!

 adamsouza wrote:
Obscure Character that most people don't know? Check!

You could say that about every single 'first' Marvel movie so far with the exception of Hulk, Captain America and Spider-Man.

Nobody knew who the feth Iron Man, Thor, Ant-Man, Dr. Strange of the Guardians of the Galaxy were. Hell, one of the biggest reoccurring jokes when it came to Marvel/DC was that DC was having trouble getting one of the most well known characters off the ground (Wonder Woman) whilst Marvel had just made mega-hit out of a talking racoon and a walking tree!

Obscurity is no barrier to entry when it comes to Marvel now.

 adamsouza wrote:
Character underperforming in comic sales? Check!

This doesn't matter in the slightest. Comic readership, whilst certainly not flagging, isn't very high to begin with. And the overwhelming majority of people watching these movies have never picked up a comic in their life. This couldn't be more irrelevant if you tried.

 adamsouza wrote:
Character reboot divisive amongst comic fans? Check!

Nobody cares, at least nobody who matters. The comic book fans who have problem with Carol being turned into a jackbooted thug means nothing to most people who are going to see this film, the majority of which didn't even know who Captain Marvel was until the trailer hit.

 adamsouza wrote:
Movie's star actress pushing identity politics? Check!

Brie Larson being insufferable online won't matter in the long run.

 adamsouza wrote:
China, a huge share of the movie market, not a fan of identity politics? Check!

Won't matter at all because it's a big Marvel movie and they seem to love those. And do you really think what some girl says on Twitter is going to matter to the billion-strong movie-going audience in China.

The only way Brie is going to disrupt the China box office is if she starts spamming #FreeTibet every day between now and when China blocks her.

 adamsouza wrote:
Movie's star with the same "fart face" in every promotional material? Check!

Not going to lie, this could be an image problem, but a full trailer in 3 months time can easily overcome this.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:

Change the script. Imagine something you are passionate about, that represents part of your identity that isn't represented elsewhere in mainstream media/culture, and then someone outside of that group gets the opportunity to judge the merits of your special thing. It would be annoying wouldn't it?

The rest aside - this is where a lot of folk take issue with what she said, because no it shouldn't be annoying, not to a reasonable person. And the assertion that it is or should be, that someone's opinion of art has value only insofar as they are personally part of some in-group directly related to that art, is a genuinely dangerous notion as far as I'm concerned.

"Women and minorities aren't adequately represented in the field of film critique." is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable statement.

It isn't that someone's opinion of art only has value if the are part of the in-group, it is that the in-group often doesn't get a chance to take part in the discussion of their art. And when the success of that discussion determines how much more of that art is made, then yes, it should be annoying to reasonable people because the target demographic isn't getting a chance to critique art made for them. Remember, Larson was specifically talking about film criticism, and how that criticism influences the industry and how future films are made.

 Yodhrin wrote:
"How qualified you are to critique something depends on whether you're part of the group the subject of your critique depicts." is a grotesque sentiment, and moreover unless you're willing to be a massive, rampant hypocrite also torpedoes vast swathes of feminist and race-based critiques of mainstream cinema, since by that ridiculous measure a black woman should have nothing to say about a film made for and starring white men.

I don't disagree with your position (and have raged at people who argue writers can't write about characters outside of the writer's in-group), but is that a hypothetical quote you made up to represent that argument, or was that said by Larson or someone in this thread? I went through looking for who said exactly that and missed it.

But, taking that argument, you are right it is rubbish. However, I don't think that is what Larson is saying. Again, she was simply arguing for more diverse voices in film criticism because the lenses used by the majority of critics are not necessarily calibrated in the same way as the subjects of the films they are critiquing.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Age of Ultron left a bad taste with the audience with respect to Black Widow. If that was the kind of story that would be told about her, I don't need to see it.

Sorry which bit?

Where Marvel's first big female hero was a mopey, depressing, emotionally unstable woman who felt she was a monster because she was sterilized and raised to be a sociopath. Wheeeeee!

What about the Black Widow's background tells you she wouldn't see herself as that?

 Crimson Devil wrote:
What about the Black Widow's background tells you she wouldn't see herself as that?

I'm not arguing it's wrong for her character. I'm saying it's a bad idea for the first big Marvel Heroine movie.

Since marvel's strength is riffing off existing genre tropes and adding super-heroics and morality stories to it..... guess what..... Black Widow fits perfectly into that concept.

Female Assassin stories with redemptive arcs practically write themselves in Hollywood and get green-lit all the time. This has been the case since..... at least the mid-70's and probably before.

I think the biggest stumbling block is how to make a Black Widow movie different from these existing and well-worn movie tropes. I see that as more of a stumbling block than any flaw in what we saw in Age of Ultron.

For whatever reason, there wasn't a Black Widow standalone film. Good idea or bad, the lack of BW film should not be a mark against the CM movie.

 Easy E wrote:

I think the biggest stumbling block is how to make a Black Widow movie different from these existing and well-worn movie tropes. I see that as more of a stumbling block than any flaw in what we saw in Age of Ultron.

If young Jackson works, they could certainly do her defection story. Part of the problem though is its not super necessary. The other thing is that her background mystery is part of the narrative appeal of the character. It also lets the character be darker when that stuff is left to our imagination than they'd likely be willing to go in a solo film. She's often defined by a willingness to cross lines that Marvel would probably rather not explicitly show. There's some value in a current timeline storyarc assuming she survives the next film, but even that almost invariably has to revolve around her past coming back to haunt her. To some degree, part of the problem is that she and the Winter Soldier share a lot of narrative space and it might be hard to carve out a niche.

 Easy E wrote:
I think the biggest stumbling block is how to make a Black Widow movie different from these existing and well-worn movie tropes.

Is that *really* an issue for Marvel, though? I'm not sure.

Personally, I wonder if part of the issue is simply that this cinematic universe is moving on to new characters. That doesn't explain why a BW film couldn't have happened BEFORE, mind you. But at this time, I'm not sure the character is part of 'the plan.' A downside of this thing that Marvel's built is there doesn't seem to be much room for one-offs that don't advance the overall storyline or expand the universe in a needed direction.

See, I'm actually glad to see WB/DC move away from shared universes and toward more one-off films like the Phoenix Joker project. WB is *never* going to do what Marvel does so well. No one else HAS been able to do it like Marvel. Look at the Sony "X" and Spidey franchises. They've been handled better than the DCEU, but were very uneven franchises with some real lows among the highs.

Doing a one-off that doesn't have much to do with anything, but has a take that's interesting, a script they really like, and a lot of good people involved...that's something WB is built to do well. Even if Marvel had those things in place for BW, I'm not sure they'd spend one of their MCU 'slots' on it, just because they have larger goals and are ready to move onto new blood.

EDIT: I think LunarSol's comment about overlap with Bucky also fits right in.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Because Black Widow sucks? Because the character is hard pressed to carry an entire movie?

Does she - why?

My detestation of Natasha starts with the comics, since that's where I've learned to loathe the character. She has almost no depth, other characters pull off EVERY aspect of her character better, except they aren't coagulated into one giant scab like her, and she is so easily replaceable that it's laughable. Yelena Belova, anyone? And comics Natasha is a MASTERPIECE compared to MCU Natasha.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I thought she has been a great character in all the movies - interesting relationship with Hawkweye and family as well as that with Bruce.

Two aspects of her otherwise infallible and unlikeable character that, yet again, couldn't hold up a solo movie.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Sexy female assassins with problems usually do quite well to get bums on seats

There you go. It's like that Joss Whedon trope female character cranked up to Eleventy Ten, as my 5 year old would say. Not to mention that until Civil War, you really didn't see her do poorly at any fight, and then she's only outclassed by Scarlet Witch's powers.


I can't seriously get motivated to like ANY aspect of the character because the sum of her parts is so bad. Carol Danvers, on the other hand, is a much better character in the comics, and unless an Academy Award winning actress can't do the part justice, I have the feeling she'll be a much better rep on the screen.

Have to agree to disagree then.

I thought she was well protrayed as a character and action hero, certainly better than say Gamora who is underused and pretty awful in a fight, but then i thought the guardians films were some of the weaker MCU films - fun in places but very patchy.

Perosnally looking forward to Cap Marvel as i do all MCU movies.

This is the real issue.

A Marvel movie has to do a couple things.

First, it has to be an interesting story in and of itself.

Second, it has to push the story of the whole MCU forward in some respect.


IM 3? It's about tony getting over his PTSD from Avengers and moves his character forward.

Dr Strange? Introduces actual Magic to the MCU.



So lets look at black widow. Shes a spy and an assassin.

Okay. So she doesn't have much in the way of a background that hasn't already been explored in the MCU. The red room was explored on agent carter. She already told the story of what was done to her. Her background doesn't really matter. She doesn't really have interesting villains of her own and she doesn't have any major villains from her past to come after her. So we send her on a mission. Except we have seen that too. It was Captain American Winter Solider and mostly it involved her stealing data off a boat.

Yeah. We could get a real neat spy movie for black widow. But I can't think of how it could really drive the MCU forward.

Oh I got one... Like... 2 years from now she gets a movie with Hawkeye. Then end up needing to kill somebody. They do, and that person turns into a skrull. Set up secret invasion.

But that opportunity hasn't existed yet. It makes PERFECT sense why they haven't had their own movie. They haven't had anything worth driving the MCU forward with yet.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:
What about the Black Widow's background tells you she wouldn't see herself as that?

I'm not arguing it's wrong for her character. I'm saying it's a bad idea for the first big Marvel Heroine movie.

So you'd say it'd be more appropriate as, say, the first big Marvel Heroin movie...instead?

You are all missing the most important aspect of this film.
Kree vs Skrull. That is more important than anything else.
Inhumans
X-Men
Fantastic Four
Shi'ar
Phalanx

 DeffDred wrote:
You are all missing the most important aspect of this film.
Kree vs Skrull. That is more important than anything else.
Inhumans
X-Men
Fantastic Four
Shi'ar
Phalanx

H'ah, it is setting up Secret War related shenanigans. I'm not even a comics guy and even I have heard of that story line.

 Easy E wrote:
Since marvel's strength is riffing off existing genre tropes and adding super-heroics and morality stories to it..... guess what..... Black Widow fits perfectly into that concept.

Female Assassin stories with redemptive arcs practically write themselves in Hollywood and get green-lit all the time. This has been the case since..... at least the mid-70's and probably before.

I think the biggest stumbling block is how to make a Black Widow movie different from these existing and well-worn movie tropes. I see that as more of a stumbling block than any flaw in what we saw in Age of Ultron.

Here is (or might have been) the plan:

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/black_widow/black-widow-a-possible-synopsis-for-the-upcoming-marvel-movie-has-been-revealed-a163708

and/or:

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/black_widow/black-widow-movie-starring-scarlett-johansson-rumored-to-include-the-y2k-virus-a163713

Problem is, did Red Sparrow already fill that niche?

Or, is it a story anyone want to see?

Probably best that Captain Marvel ends up as the MCU's first female lead.

 Mysterio wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
Since marvel's strength is riffing off existing genre tropes and adding super-heroics and morality stories to it..... guess what..... Black Widow fits perfectly into that concept.

Female Assassin stories with redemptive arcs practically write themselves in Hollywood and get green-lit all the time. This has been the case since..... at least the mid-70's and probably before.

I think the biggest stumbling block is how to make a Black Widow movie different from these existing and well-worn movie tropes. I see that as more of a stumbling block than any flaw in what we saw in Age of Ultron.

Here is (or might have been) the plan:

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/black_widow/black-widow-a-possible-synopsis-for-the-upcoming-marvel-movie-has-been-revealed-a163708

and/or:

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/black_widow/black-widow-movie-starring-scarlett-johansson-rumored-to-include-the-y2k-virus-a163713

Problem is, did Red Sparrow already fill that niche?

Or, is it a story anyone want to see?

Probably best that Captain Marvel ends up as the MCU's first female lead.

I would have def watched that - female assassin's are fun - plus its not like male actors have not played that role hundreds of times - eg Jon Wick story has been done loads of times but still making them

 Lance845 wrote:
This is the real issue.

A Marvel movie has to do a couple things.

First, it has to be an interesting story in and of itself.

Second, it has to push the story of the whole MCU forward in some respect.


IM 3? It's about tony getting over his PTSD from Avengers and moves his character forward.

Dr Strange? Introduces actual Magic to the MCU.



So lets look at black widow. Shes a spy and an assassin.

Okay. So she doesn't have much in the way of a background that hasn't already been explored in the MCU. The red room was explored on agent carter. She already told the story of what was done to her. Her background doesn't really matter. She doesn't really have interesting villains of her own and she doesn't have any major villains from her past to come after her. So we send her on a mission. Except we have seen that too. It was Captain American Winter Solider and mostly it involved her stealing data off a boat.

Yeah. We could get a real neat spy movie for black widow. But I can't think of how it could really drive the MCU forward.

Well, it could have, had they kept her actual background and origin story, and not just made her a product of an end-of-the-Cold War spy program.

Because being an actual Romanov (yes, the Russian dynasty, a 'missing daughter' of Nicholas II, I believe) given over to the Hand (yes, the Marvel Universe ninja organization). She's briefly rescued (as a pre-teen) prior to the mystic rite that would transform her by Captain America and Wolverine, but they accidentally hand her over to her guardian, who's in on the deal. That had several elements that could have moved the MCU forward. With her backstory chopped out with an axe, she's rather uninteresting, and the various Avengers movies (including the Captain America movies) don't seem to know what to do with her. The IM movies actually did the best job with her- part of Fury's organization, but willing and capable of making decisions and taking action.

Voss wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

So lets look at black widow. Shes a spy and an assassin.

Okay. So she doesn't have much in the way of a background that hasn't already been explored in the MCU. The red room was explored on agent carter. She already told the story of what was done to her. Her background doesn't really matter. She doesn't really have interesting villains of her own and she doesn't have any major villains from her past to come after her. So we send her on a mission. Except we have seen that too. It was Captain American Winter Solider and mostly it involved her stealing data off a boat.

Yeah. We could get a real neat spy movie for black widow. But I can't think of how it could really drive the MCU forward.

Well, it could have, had they kept her actual background and origin story, and not just made her a product of an end-of-the-Cold War spy program.

Because being an actual Romanov (yes, the Russian dynasty, a 'missing daughter' of Nicholas II, I believe) given over to the Hand (yes, the Marvel Universe ninja organization). She's briefly rescued (as a pre-teen) prior to the mystic rite that would transform her by Captain America and Wolverine, but they accidentally hand her over to her guardian, who's in on the deal. That had several elements that could have moved the MCU forward. With her backstory chopped out with an axe, she's rather uninteresting, and the various Avengers movies (including the Captain America movies) don't seem to know what to do with her. The IM movies actually did the best job with her- part of Fury's organization, but willing and capable of making decisions and taking action.

Her actual background and story in the comics is she was trained in the Red Room. Which was explored in Agent Carter and talked about in Age of Ultron. All that incredibly convoluted gak would have made for a crap movie. The MCU has done a great job of trimming the fat from everyones classic comic origins and boiling them down to the core elements. Black Widows heritage isn't anything that anyone would give a single gak about in the modern day. And the hand is a crap thing to introduce without adding in magic first. Could you IMAGINE a phase 1 black widow movie that involved the hand and magic before avengers 1?

They would have jumped the shark real early.