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.

 Easy E wrote:
Good point Geifer. Many of the intro stories of the Avengers were much smaller scale, almost personal stories. That seems to have been lost a bit with the "new generation".

Sure, their stories involve them overcoming personal stuff BUT the stakes if they don't are Universe/Multi-verse altering. Many of the earlier intro stories were much more personal in nature.

I mean, Iron Man 1-3 is just some folks who want revenge on Tony for being a douchebag.

We also saw our heroes confronted with their dark reflection. This served to show us that it’s more than just their powers/equipment that make them heroes, but how they use them, or I suppose, don’t use them.

Now that could and did quickly become a trope, but it was usually wielded to decent effect. And with poor old Wanda Maximoff, we eventually saw her fall into self indulgence, following a life time of hardship, and become considerably worse than those who’d heaped abuse and betrayal upon her.

Those all helped frame our heroes. Lately? Not so much of that. They overcome their foes, yes. But they’re not overcoming their own foibles quite as much. Though that is central to Danvers’ journey in The Marvels. Her actions doomed the Kree, because she felt she knew best. And because of that, other worlds were made to suffer in her stead - which is a pretty solid super trope, and why many go to lengths to remain anonymous. After all, someone may not be able to lay a finger on you, but your family might very well be a different story.

As much as I love Kamala, I kind of feel like there's a stronger version of that script without her that focuses on Carol and Monica. In particular, it feels very important that the Kree solution was technically pretty easy and well within Carol's power; just not an answer she could see on her own.

Which I kind of liked as a solution. Work wise, my colleagues and I help each other in similar ways. Usually where we’ve tied ourselves up in knots. Having someone one step removed who can offer a simple solution can be the very thing.

A “can’t see the forest for the trees” type situation.

And it provides character growth to Carol. To know she doesn’t have to do it all on her own. That even when you’re off the power charts, you still need friends to support you, and talk things over with.

But, that part of the story is very nearly entirely lost among the spectacle.

"Did you ever hear the tragedy of Captain Marvel the Petty, a superhero so powerful that she could act in whichever way she pleased? I thought not. It's not a tale the Avengers would tell. Captain Marvel was so powerful and so petty that she could even influence a star to extinguish and condemn countless innocent people to a slow death. The only thing she was afraid of was to have her douchey behavior called out, which of course she had. It's ironic. She could close her eyes to the suffering of others, but not her own."

 LunarSol wrote:
As much as I love Kamala, I kind of feel like there's a stronger version of that script without her that focuses on Carol and Monica. In particular, it feels very important that the Kree solution was technically pretty easy and well within Carol's power; just not an answer she could see on her own.

I don't recall the details anymore (high time for the movie to go up on Disney+ so I can watch it again), but at least on a conceptual level I see value in having both her biggest fan and someone close who she disappointed around at the same time to provide different perspectives and a bit of a dynamic that's more fun to watch than a quick moral lesson that ends in some technobabble for a quick fix.

The movie needed Kamala as the likeable character.

Technically she didn't damage the star herself. She destroyed the AI that controlled all of Kree society causing a civil war in which someone did something that damaged the star.

 LunarSol wrote:
Technically she didn't damage the star herself. She destroyed the AI that controlled all of Kree society causing a civil war in which someone did something that damaged the star.

Which any sane person would blame on the person or persons who damaged the star, not the person who destroyed the AI that (for reasons) was the only reason the Kree weren't fighting a genocidal war with themselves.

Which could have made for an interesting point when we find out it's the villain of the piece (no, I don't remember her name) who extinguished the star, and she blamed Captain Marvel for it to avoid accepting her own guilt. But that's far too complex for the current crop of Disney writers to come up with...

It was also meant to be a lighthearted hijinks movie. For the most part. Leaning more heavily into the Kree genocide drama wouldn’t have facilitated hijinks. As it is, I feel like they spent too much time on the villain’s perspective when seeing everything from the Marvels’ viewpoint would have meant more Marveling.

A full drama also could have been a good direction. But it wouldn’t have had so many kittens.

I wouldn't consider it insane to put a considerable amount of blame on Captain Marvel. Or rather, I wouldn't consider it uncommon behavior for people to do that. If you know that your society has extremists and genocidal maniacs and those guys pull the trigger, sure you're going to blame them for what they do. But you also recognize that the government and its security infrastructure keeps those people at bay to ensure peace and prosperity. By breaking one thing, Captain Marvel broke everything. She gets blamed for setting a cataclysm in motion. That she didn't push the big, red button herself is immaterial.

It's not dissimilar from Tony Stark making Ultron. He had the best of intentions (Carol settled on revenge as her motivation, just for comparison), but the AI he created didn't develop as he intended and went genocidal. Tony recognized his responsibility, tried to fix things and in the aftermath championed the Sokovia Accords because he had learned that power needs oversight. Carol did no such thing. She didn't take responsibility, didn't try to make amends on her own initiative and only changed her mind when she was presented with a quick and easy fix in the aftermath.

Honestly, I'm not sure we got the villain and the hero entirely straight in The Marvels. Not that the villain isn't villainous (no, I don't remember her name either). She tries to save her people first and get a bit of (excessively genocidal) revenge in the process. But it's not like Captain Marvel is the shining knight in this movie. I don't think making it so the villain extinguished the sun adds any nuance. Quite the opposite, really. It just increases the contrast between the two and makes it easier to let Captain Marvel off the hook.

In a way this is nice. I've commented before that she isn't what I would expect superhero fans to want to see in their heroes, but Captain Marvel does add something we haven't seen much of in the MCU. I'd consider that a plus as it makes her stand out in a way many other superheroes of late failed to do.

Yeah, Danvers is clearly feeling guilty in this film. Not necessarily because she took out the Supreme Intelligence, but perhaps more the how.

As a super powered individual, seemingly unstoppable by conventional means (even our villain works around her, rather than trying to neutralise or kill her), she went after the Supreme Intelligence believing she knew best - and not considering what losing its government might mean for the Kree. She was driven by (understandable!) personal vengeance, and caused unspeakable harm to an entire people by not following her actions though after.

'driven by personal vengeance' is a hard sell. The Kree have been professional donkey caves for thousands of years, including human experimentation (regardless of the current status of Inhumans in the MCU) and a currently (recently?) active genocide division, and general standing orders to murder refugees.

Did personal feelings come into it? Sure. But the Kree Supreme Intelligence was an active threat to the galaxy and a genocidal monster.

I think someone earlier mentioned that one of the key aspects of Super Fatigue is nothing to do with the Supers themselves. I think the idea was that Supers have not changed per se, but the culture around them has changed. Therefore, Supers are no longer speaking to what people want to see.

For example, it is a "known" trend that when economic times are tough, upbeat POP music becomes very popular. When times are better, the general population turns to music with different themes than upbeat, hedonistic POP.

Perhaps a similar phenomena impacts the Cinema and the genres that work within it? I am not close enough to know, but I am sure someone with more insight can tell me Yeah, or No.

Voss wrote:
'driven by personal vengeance' is a hard sell. The Kree have been professional donkey caves for thousands of years, including human experimentation (regardless of the current status of Inhumans in the MCU) and a currently (recently?) active genocide division, and general standing orders to murder refugees.

Did personal feelings come into it? Sure. But the Kree Supreme Intelligence was an active threat to the galaxy and a genocidal monster.

Eh. Captain Marvel didn't have any problems with the AI or the empire's politics when she was a Kree soldier. That only came about when she was personally screwed over. Sure, it's plausible that she deluded herself into believing that destroying the AI would help the poor, oppressed Skrolls (except the ones she had happily murdered earlier, of course) after switching sides. Somehow. She's not exactly shown to think things through after all. But nothing about her characterization makes me think the primary drive is anything but petty revenge.

The difference between Danvers and the Kree?

Danvers has experience of personal autonomy. When she remembered herself in Captain Marvel, she remembers a life before everything was decided for herself by a computer. Add in she was shown to be one to buck trends and you end up with a super powered person with a helluva chip on her shoulder.

And if it ever crossed her mind that “wait, the Supreme Intelligence has governed the Kree for as long as anyone can remember. Therefore, the Kree know no other existence”, it was too late. Because now an entire civilisation was left without guidance. Left to make decisions entirely on the personal level with no previous experience, or consideration for consequences.

Which for me as a scary thing to consider.

 Easy E wrote:

For example, it is a "known" trend that when economic times are tough, upbeat POP music becomes very popular. When times are better, the general population turns to music with different themes than upbeat, hedonistic POP.

Perhaps a similar phenomena impacts the Cinema and the genres that work within it? I am not close enough to know, but I am sure someone with more insight can tell me Yeah, or No.

I haven't read up enough on the background metrics for cinema specifically, but broad sci-fi novels trend the same way (well, outside of set series novels, like 40k, Trek, SW, etc. books where the themes are largely set by the broader world). So in that same line of thinking, it would make sense that film would run similarly to music and literature, even if there are 1-3 years difference between the various media (owing to creative processes in each form).


My current workplace pace is fairly slow. As such, I throw on strings of youtube videos to listen to while working. This past weekend I went and saw Godzilla Minus one. Much of this week has been various YT channels doing in depth reviews, deep dives, lore dives, blah blah blah. I do usually start manually changing up what comes up. Anyhow. A lot of the YT reviewers, none of whom I am subscribed to, are all saying things along the same lines: this is what audiences have been clamoring for for YEARS!!! or "hollywood take note, THIS is how you movie!"

I think part of where my personal fatigue has come in to play is, more and more marvel movies (and by extension DC) are going animated super suit levels with their CGI. They are cheaping out on writing in exchange for spectacle, and I think that people are genuinely wanting films that are deeper and more meaningful, even if they are inherently escapism. Nearly everyone I've seen talk about G -1 all talk about how the deeper themes were handled.

Some of the "fatigue" could very well be hollywood's own doing. Take the following link with a grain of salt, obviously, I'm using it more for illustration than actual hard data. . . studio heads and monied interests are, as usual, more interested in "safe bets", and while there are certainly people who just enjoy cinema and go see safe bets, you can easily see on various socials that people keep saying "we want actual original ideas". The difficult balance is when someone strikes gold with a movie, do you NEED to turn it into a franchise? Does it NEED spinoffs and origin stories and prequels or sequels?

Perhaps it isn't so much "superhero fatigue" as it is "unoriginality fatigue"

https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/wuzw57/in_1981_just_16_of_the_most_popular_movies_were/