Captain Marvel or How Marvel does everything better than everyone else
- Thread starter Saelune
- Start date
No, I asked you "who, apart from group, is seeing it as abnormal?"Saelune said:
It's not asking "Besides 4, what does 2 and 2 equal," it's asking "aside from 2 and 2, what else can make 4?" Of course, the answer to that is any infinite number of combinations, but you just need to pick one of them.
Yes, the bomb, I saw the movie. I still think there's a cozy moral buffer between bombing a planet and killing a person. And to be fair to Marvel the rule about having to kill the bad guy in self-defense precedes the MCU and Disney. It's just so much more noticeable and annoying when the shtick of every one of your characters is "punches/shoots bad guys for a living".erttheking said:
I mean a bad fit as in none of her one liners really land and she's not got a great deal of charisma. She's at the same level as Natalie Portman in Thor, shes just there to read lines and get a pay check. Like when I watched Guardians Gamora and Nebula feel like they're characters and the actors are invested, Larson makes Captain Marvel feel like a plot device.trunkage said:
The more interesting question is, "which group?". I'll be the first to admit action-oriented movies with women leads are a minority. But, in this day and age it's hardly a novelty nor particularly revolutionary...and therein lies one of the key problems with which people take issue, namely historical revisionism on the part of those advertising and promoting films like Captain Marvel in the name of feminism.Hawki said:
The only way in which Captain Marvel is a "leading" film, is that it's the first (1.) MCU (2.) film to have a (3.) super-powered woman be the (4.) titular character. That's a comic set of disclaimers. Scarlett Johannson as Black Widow was first-billed in Iron Man 2, Zoe Saldana as Gamora was the first-billed woman super-powered character in Guardians 1, Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter was the first titular woman in an MCU property, and Krysten Ritter was the first superpowered woman titular character in an MCU property. What Captain Marvel was not, was neither the first woman-led superhero movie based on a Marvel property (which was Elektra if I remember right), nor the first woman-led superhero movie at all.
Same crap happened with Wonder Woman (2017). Not only was Wonder Woman not the first DC woman superhero to get a film, it wasn't even the first Wonder Woman movie.
Sure, the '74 Wonder Woman movie was made-for-TV schlock, and likewise were Supergirl, Catwoman, and Elektra big screen garbage. But, straight talk: out of the entire body of work, how many superhero and comic book movies in general prior to the MCU were actually good? Those four movies being garbage, were normal for the genre. Writing those movies off for being low-budget, made-for-TV, not a tentpole release, nor very good, is actually applying a higher standard for women-led comic book movies opposed to men, which is misogynist as hell.
Which, by the by, Supergirl was the first big-budget, Hollywood-level production standards, woman-led and -titled superhero movie. It was produced by Warner Bros, shot at Pinewood, had a Hollywood cast (Faye Dunaway, Peter O'Toole, Mia Farrow for three), scored by Jerry Goldsmith, and had a budget of $35 million. By comparison, Terminator had a budget of $6.4m, Temple of Doom had a budget of $28m, and Ghostbusters had a budget of $30m.
The same damn revisionist talking points and narratives get trucked out about every year about how "new property" is so new, ground-breaking, glass ceiling-shattering, and revolutionary, and all nay-sayers or critics are simply misogynist trolls, while damn near everything that came before (for good or ill) gets conveniently memory holed. What keeps works like Captain Marvel seen as "abnormal" as it was put, is their constant, largely unjustified, treatment as abnormalities. Not because they are abnormalities at this point, but to market them.
I read somewhere that Chinese audiences found Captain Marvel "too ugly to be a superhero" apparently XD.
I wonder if it's those darned alt right Communists at work again!
I wonder if it's those darned alt right Communists at work again!
ScarJo as Black Widow in Iron Man 2 was barely a character and was also part of an ensemble. So were Gamora and Peggy Carter, on top of being the love interests. They didn't exactly lead the movies they were in, those were still led by men.Eacaraxe said:
Spider-Man 1, Spider-Man 2, X-Men 1, X-Men 2, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Incredibles. Heck I'd count Blade 1 and 2 as well, but even without those movies that's 7 good superhero movies at least prior to the MCU. That's more good movies than the MCU even has. And guess what, all those movies were led by men or experienced primarily from a guy's perspective.
Yeah, and the plot of that movie totally didn't revolve around Supergirl and the female villain catfighting over a man.
The fact that Wonder Woman was the first female led superhero blockbuster to actually be good was a pretty big deal. It meant genuine effort and money was being put into something NOT starring a man. Even if the Supergirl movie had been good, it would've been a rare outlier.
I remember seeing various tweets in JP twitter back in the day saying something along the lines of "this godzilla ate too much mcdonalds" lol.undeadsuitor said:
Anyhow, here's the article:
https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/03/20/report-chinese-movie-goers-dont-think-brie-larsons-captain-marvel-is-attractive-enough/
Yeah, her charisma is nothing like RDJ. It's got more of a banter feel rather than quips. Personally, bit sick of quips and appreciate trying something new. I thought it worked okay when she was part of a team but not when she was fighting enemies. I don't know if it was the script or her. I'll wait to see what she does in the next one.Here Comes Tomorrow said:
She's probably like a Ruffalo and would benefit from being in a team rather than being by herself.
Yeah, I've noticed that too. It's a far more benign abnormality, but one all the same.Eacaraxe said:
Captain Marvel is the first MCU film with a sole female lead. That's its claim to fame as far as precedents go. It isn't the first female superhero movie, it isn't the first female Marvel superhero movie, and it isn't the first critically acclaimed female superhero movie (see Wonder Woman).
Still received top billing which was my point.Casual Shinji said:
Hey now, I liked that character. Being she was a founding member of SHIELD and all, it'd have been cool if they did a television show about her and her exploits. It would even be a part of MCU, like Agents of SHIELD, and everything! Hell, they could even name the show after her!
So, how many bad superhero movies were there before the MCU started? Kind of my entire point, there.
So, what about any shortcomings of the movie's plot negates its budget, casting, scoring, and production?
A pretty big deal that was neatly thrown under the bus by the very people who oh-so-vehemently supported and defended it, right up until the point criticisms surfaced about the movie only passing the Bechdel test thanks to its opening scene, the amount of skin the costume showed, the addition of romantic subplot between Diana and Steve, and Diana's...shaved pits. Scarcely a word about the film since. Strange, one would almost take the film's reception as a cautionary tale against groupthink, however good it was.
I thought Wonder Woman was garbage. So the idea that it was the "first good" one is entirely subjective. Captain Marvel was better if only because it held my attention.
So in other words it doesn?t count because you don?t feel like it counts. Ignoring that Quill was actively holding Ego down while the guy was desperate to stop the bomb, I think it?s clear that you just made up your mind and no amount of evidence is going to change that. Pepper overloading a reactor in Iron Monger?s face, Vision frying Ultron, Tony directing a nuke at a mothership, you don?t feel like it counts so it doesn?t.Johnny Novgorod said:
That's an unfair comparison since there've been superhero movies probably since the 40's, and the MCU is about 10 years old. So obviously by comparison the MCU has a better track record. Saying 'oh yeah, those female led superhero movies were garbage, because superhero movies were just garbage back then' is not true.Eacaraxe said:
The fact that the movie was so bad and embarrassing because of this that they didn't bother with another female superhero movie till.. what, Barb Wire? Also, the Supergirl movie was made to ride the coat tale of the Christopher Reeve Superman, that's why it had the budget it had.
Who? What very people were that? Or is this one of those cases were two or three tweets about it surfaced therefor 'SJWs hate Wonder Woman because she has shaved armpits'? And Christ, we're living in a time where every movie gets shoved down the plothole meatgrinder by a 100+ YouTube videos.
Also, Wonder Woman has been brought up quite a bit since Captain Marvel got released. Heck, it's still being brought up whenever the DCCU is being discussed, and how it was the first of those movies to not be grimdark trash.