Captain Marvel or How Marvel does everything better than everyone else

[Neurotic Void Melody]

I loved it. It's more Marvel, but I enjoy the "Marvel Formula", so that isn't an issue for me. It definitely isn't among the best Marvel has to offer, but as far as Origin stories go it's pretty good. Brie Larson does an amazing job bringing Carol Danvers to the big screen. Fury is fucking great as usual. I'm positive one specific scene will be divisive as fuck. I thought it was hilarious, but I understand why people expecting something more serious would be disappointed. All in all, it was a fun time. Also, Goose is adorable as hell.

"I don't need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn't work about A Wrinkle in Time. It wasn't made for him! I want to know what it meant to women of color, biracial women, to teen women of color. Am I saying I hate white dudes? No, I am not. What I am saying is if you make a movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is an insanely low chance a woman of color will have a chance to see your movie, and review your movie. It really sucks that reviews matter - but reviews matter. Good reviews out of festivals give small, independent films a fighting chance to be bought and seen. Good reviews help films gross money, good reviews slingshot films into awards contenders. A good review can change your life. It changed mine."

http://time.com/5312618/brie-larson-women-in-film/

This is the bad, awful thing she said. I understand why a white guy with a victim-complex would take offense. After all she's asking for diversity! Ugh!

Oh wow, that is pretty damn tame, exceptionally mild. As a sort of member of said demographic, am not feeling attacked at all, like... I would need to do some serious reaching and misinterpretation to extract anything resembling personal offence there. *Sigh* increasingly regretting subjecting myself to internet culture these days as whenever anything even slightly progressive appears, the first emotional reaction isn't positivity, but dread as the mind instantly cycles through all those internet manbabies predicted vitriol towards it, each and every selfish bitter reaction. Now, the positivity is second to the anticipation of insular assholes everywhere, like ringing echoes of ignorance validating each other through incessant vocal platforming, preying on those with low self-esteem and minimal understanding of societal issues. Then again, a biological tendency for taking in and being unable to ignore intense negativity probably contributes a lot to that, so it's probably a personal issues in that regard.

It gets a couple in the end.

Ooooh, a rare moment of hope that isn't a joke for once

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

It gets a couple in the end.

Ooooh, a rare moment of hope that isn't a joke for once

Well, it's heroism AND a joke in that it's played off as one. Let's call it Baby Groot heroism.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

Okay, real talk here:

The reason Disney is under constant attack by reactionaries doesn't have anything to do with their movies, their quality or their marketing. Disney is a fairly conservative company and always has been. The reason these reactionaries keep attacking Disney is because many Jews work there. In their eyes Disney is a Jewish company which is why it needs to be attacked.

That, for that matter, is the reason for most rightist attacks on the film industry in general. Not any concrete connection the industry has to their boogeyman of Cultural Marxism. Which, for the record, also means "anything involving jewish people"

Wow. I need to dig into leftist conspiracy theories more.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Okay, real talk here:

The reason Disney is under constant attack by reactionaries doesn't have anything to do with their movies, their quality or their marketing. Disney is a fairly conservative company and always has been. The reason these reactionaries keep attacking Disney is because many Jews work there. In their eyes Disney is a Jewish company which is why it needs to be attacked.

That, for that matter, is the reason for most rightist attacks on the film industry in general. Not any concrete connection the industry has to their boogeyman of Cultural Marxism. Which, for the record, also means "anything involving jewish people"

Wow. I need to dig into leftist conspiracy theories more.

Oh, come on. Just read the discussion around Captain Marvel or practically any new Star Wars movie and count how many times (((some person))) does that cute little "triple brackets" thing rightists use to mark the names of people or companies they think are jewish.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

Okay, real talk here:

The reason Disney is under constant attack by reactionaries doesn't have anything to do with their movies, their quality or their marketing. Disney is a fairly conservative company and always has been. The reason these reactionaries keep attacking Disney is because many Jews work there. In their eyes Disney is a Jewish company which is why it needs to be attacked.

That, for that matter, is the reason for most rightist attacks on the film industry in general. Not any concrete connection the industry has to their boogeyman of Cultural Marxism. Which, for the record, also means "anything involving jewish people"

Wow. I need to dig into leftist conspiracy theories more.

Oh, come on. Just read the discussion around Captain Marvel or practically any new Star Wars movie and count how many times (((some person))) does that cute little "triple brackets" thing rightists use to mark the names of people or companies they think are jewish.

Compelling evidence indeed.

 

[CyanCat47_v1legacy]

Just got back from watching it, and it was alright. It was nice to see an origin marvel movie that strayed from the formula, but in the process some of the new things they tried out didn't really work very well. While i liked Jude Law's character, the movie's attempt to subvert the traditional rivalry backstory just makes him feel pointless. When Carol says "I have been fighting with a hand tied behind my back the whole time" i was kind of mift. She beat Jude Law in their first fight by using her energy powers, so she is shown as stronger and more important than him from the beginning. If they had merged the supreme intelligence and his character in some way, it might have made for a more effective antagonist, even if it means removing Jude Law from the movie. The final 'fight' between him and Carol just hammers it home further. The movie might subvert a trope by not killing him off or have her fistfight him, but as a result he feels pointless. It may be tiresome for the hero to always fight someone with the same power as them, but Loke, Ironmonger, Bucky Barnes, Killmonger and Quill's dad feel more meaningful when they actually pose a threat. While we are on the subject of other marvel villains, the whole "Without us you are just human" moment worked much better in guardians 2 because the movie took more time to set up character relationships, which this movie has a general problem with. Carol and Marie's relationship would have felt more meaningful if the few flashbacks we got focused on the two of them a bit more rather than a bunch of faceless mysoginists knocking Carol down over and over so that we could have that multiple standing up scene at the end. The message was clear with the airforce rope scene which was the best one. All the childhood shots just makes it look like a commercial for 30 seconds.

The inclusion of Ronan was overall a bad decision in my opinion. He couldn't die or be defeated in this movie because he had to be in Guardians later in the timeline, but by having Carol destroy one of his ships in 30 seconds it feels like the only reason the plot of Guardians 1 happened was that Captain Marvel couldn't spare another 2 minutes to take out Ronans entire fleet there and then. His body count in the final battle of Guardians 1 alone is higher than that of this entire movie, and if Captain Marvel cared that much about hers, maybe she should have though of that before destroying two entire space ships full of crew, one of which was filled with Skrulls. Speaking of the Skrulls, the movie has a similar problem to TFA's problem with storm troopers. We are asked to sympathise with them later in the movie, but at the start they act completely like villains, and this behavious, coupled with the ammount of Skrulls Captain Marvel killed in the first half are never really re-examined the way it feels like they should have been

It was an overall enjoyable movie, even if its attempts to stand out from the rest of its type kind of backfired at times

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Anything in this movie that I need to know for Avengers or its it kinda Ant Man like where I can skip it and the character just appears?

You get a backstory to the "Avengers" name and Carol's precise connection to Fury (ie. they teamed up in 1995). Also one of the Infinity Stones shows up for a wink. That's about it.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

The inclusion of Ronan was overall a bad decision in my opinion. He couldn't die or be defeated in this movie because he had to be in Guardians later in the timeline, but by having Carol destroy one of his ships in 30 seconds it feels like the only reason the plot of Guardians 1 happened was that Captain Marvel couldn't spare another 2 minutes to take out Ronans entire fleet there and then.

Isn't that the problem with every movie as more superheroes get introduced? Where was Iron Man in Captain America 2, or Thor 2? Where was Thor in every movie that doesn't have Thor? Why did X didn't save the day in Y's movie? And so on.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Anything in this movie that I need to know for Avengers or its it kinda Ant Man like where I can skip it and the character just appears?

You get a backstory to the "Avengers" name and Carol's precise connection to Fury (ie. they teamed up in 1995). Also one of the Infinity Stones shows up for a wink. That's about it.

If that's all I don't mind waiting for it to come to Netflix

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

Okay, real talk here:

The reason Disney is under constant attack by reactionaries doesn't have anything to do with their movies, their quality or their marketing. Disney is a fairly conservative company and always has been. The reason these reactionaries keep attacking Disney is because many Jews work there. In their eyes Disney is a Jewish company which is why it needs to be attacked.

That, for that matter, is the reason for most rightist attacks on the film industry in general. Not any concrete connection the industry has to their boogeyman of Cultural Marxism. Which, for the record, also means "anything involving jewish people"

Wow. I need to dig into leftist conspiracy theories more.

Oh, come on. Just read the discussion around Captain Marvel or practically any new Star Wars movie and count how many times (((some person))) does that cute little "triple brackets" thing rightists use to mark the names of people or companies they think are jewish.

Are you positive these people actually hate the jews and aren't just writing in that way cause they know it upsets people like you?

I mean, I don't know for sure that they are, but it sounds a lot more plausible to me. If you are someone who acknowledges how dumb anti-jew conspiracy theories such as them controlling the movie industry are, you should extend that understanding to all sorts of conspiracy theories, even ones against you personally.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

Okay, real talk here:

The reason Disney is under constant attack by reactionaries doesn't have anything to do with their movies, their quality or their marketing. Disney is a fairly conservative company and always has been. The reason these reactionaries keep attacking Disney is because many Jews work there. In their eyes Disney is a Jewish company which is why it needs to be attacked.

That, for that matter, is the reason for most rightist attacks on the film industry in general. Not any concrete connection the industry has to their boogeyman of Cultural Marxism. Which, for the record, also means "anything involving jewish people"

Wow. I need to dig into leftist conspiracy theories more.

Oh, come on. Just read the discussion around Captain Marvel or practically any new Star Wars movie and count how many times (((some person))) does that cute little "triple brackets" thing rightists use to mark the names of people or companies they think are jewish.

Are you positive these people actually hate the jews and aren't just writing in that way cause they know it upsets people like you?

I mean, I don't know for sure that they are, but it sounds a lot more plausible to me. If you are someone who acknowledges how dumb anti-jew conspiracy theories such as them controlling the movie industry are, you should extend that understanding to all sorts of conspiracy theories, even ones against you personally.

Are you saying there are people on the internet that like to upset people FOR FUN!? I find that very hard to believe.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Anything in this movie that I need to know for Avengers or its it kinda Ant Man like where I can skip it and the character just appears?

You get a backstory to the "Avengers" name and Carol's precise connection to Fury (ie. they teamed up in 1995). Also one of the Infinity Stones shows up for a wink. That's about it.

If that's all I don't mind waiting for it to come to Netflix

Don't know about post-credits scenes. I walked out before they played but it's nothing I couldn't just google if I gave a shit.

 

[Hades]

The inclusion of Ronan was overall a bad decision in my opinion. He couldn't die or be defeated in this movie because he had to be in Guardians later in the timeline, but by having Carol destroy one of his ships in 30 seconds it feels like the only reason the plot of Guardians 1 happened was that Captain Marvel couldn't spare another 2 minutes to take out Ronans entire fleet there and then. His body count in the final battle of Guardians 1 alone is higher than that of this entire movie, and if Captain Marvel cared that much about hers, maybe she should have though of that before destroying two entire space ships full of crew, one of which was filled with Skrulls. Speaking of the Skrulls, the movie has a similar problem to TFA's problem with storm troopers. We are asked to sympathise with them later in the movie, but at the start they act completely like villains, and this behavious, coupled with the ammount of Skrulls Captain Marvel killed in the first half are never really re-examined the way it feels like they should have been

It was an overall enjoyable movie, even if its attempts to stand out from the rest of its type kind of backfired at times

Including Ronan would also be a bad decision on account of Rowan being a terrible villain. Isn't he generally seen as one of the weakest Marvel villains? In a franchise with relatively poor villains he stands out as particularly forgettable.

 

[Erttheking]

Where the fuck did this thread go?

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

Where the fuck did this thread go?

Whatever it was I bet the Jews did it.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

it feels like the only reason the plot of Guardians 1 happened was that Captain Marvel couldn't spare another 2 minutes to take out Ronans entire fleet there and then.

Maybe super heroes aren't big on mass murder and stuff.

 

[Hawki]

it feels like the only reason the plot of Guardians 1 happened was that Captain Marvel couldn't spare another 2 minutes to take out Ronans entire fleet there and then.

Maybe super heroes aren't big on mass murder and stuff.

She basically states her intention to dismantle the Kree Empire. That isn't going to happen without bloodshed.

Of course, that doesn't actually happen, in part because she shifts to "nah, I'm actually gonna help the skrulls find a new home," but there's no reason to leave Ronan alive when she's having Yogg-Ronn be messenger boy.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Well, they've got a good formula attached to a decent story and a massive amount of forward momentum.

The sideshow hilarity of weird nerds conspiring to review bomb it in plain sight is just icing on the cake.

My favorite is the dude that said, and I quote

If it [Captain Marvel] teaches women that they can be anything they want to be, specifically able to take on a 220 pound man in hand to hand combat and not get pummeled into the dirt, then it is a girl power movie and a cancer on our culture

Like, Captain Marvel literally has the standard suite of super powers. Super strength, speed, durability, flight, and energy absorption/projection. And this dude is mad that she can punch out a mook.

Actually the movie literally says she cant without the powers. She fights Jude Law and can never beat him without the powers. She just eventually realizes she [doesn't have to prove anything to him]. The movie DID say to never stop getting up, no matter how many times you get knocked down though.

None of these idiots ever watch the movie. I learned that back with "Wakanda was an ethno-state actually" line these alt-right pricks tried. Completely missing that the movie went on to say "and that was bad"

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

it feels like the only reason the plot of Guardians 1 happened was that Captain Marvel couldn't spare another 2 minutes to take out Ronans entire fleet there and then.

Maybe super heroes aren't big on mass murder and stuff.

She probably killed hundreds taking down one ship, why not a few hundred more?

 

[Captain Marvelous_v1legacy]

She didn't say criticism from a particular group is dismissable.

She just dismissed criticism from an entire group by definition. As in:

X: I have an opinion on A.

Y: I have no interest in the opinion of X on A.

What is that if not dismissal?

And, yeah, this argument bugs me. It's always bugged me well before Brie Larson opened her mouth. I've seen this idea tossed around in numerous forms, though usually it's along the lines of "it was made for the fans" or "if you don't like it, why watch it?" Usually, it's a way of trying to dismiss any criticism without having to actually engage in that criticism. The latter arguably bothers me any more, because if you make something that's crap, and defend it with "it's for the fans," then by insinuation, your fans are happy lapping up crap.

More like, there's a particular insight that different people bring when critiquing. A cis critic and a trans critic will likely have different takes on Rocky Picture Horror Show. A straight critic and a gay critic may have different takes on But I'm a Cheerleader.

Um, yes? I'm not disputing that.

The point isn't to knock down white male critics but to uplift women, people of color, and lgbtq+ critics so that the conversation isn't dominated by a single group that potentially doesn't understand or appreciate what it does.

I know that's not the point per se - Larson made the point in a separate statement when she gave statistics on the demographics of film critics. However, again, it's effectively falling into the same fallacy:

X: I don't like A.

Y: It wasn't made for X. I want to know what Z thinks about A.

If we're really entertaining the idea that critique of art becomes more or less valid in sync with the identity/lack of it of the person reviewing it, then ultimately, the act of critique is worthless.

Also, it's telling that A Wrinkle in Time is the film being used as an example, said film being a box office bomb, and panned by critics and fans alike. Maybe the film just wasn't that good? Like, the whole "critics are out of touch" argument is conspicuously nowhere to be seen when critics and fans align. Apparently "the critics are out of touch, except when they agree with me" is the true message being imparted.

I think there's a significant difference between what she says and "The opinion of X is worthless and shouldn't be listened to." I get where you're coming from. I've seen that bullshit trotted out before, but this isn't quite the same. Like, if I were looking for a review of a racing game I wouldn't want to get it from someone whose gaming experience begins at Call of Duty and ends at Madden. I'd want it from someone who plays and understands racing games. That doesn't mean that the Madden reviewer's opinion is invalid, there are plenty of insightful discussions they can still bring to the table and the review would be useful for those coming from the same experience, but it's the racing reviewer who is more likely to give me what I want. So her statement of "I don't need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn't work about A Wrinkle in Time.", is more like "I want a black woman to tell me what didn't work about A Wrinkle in Time." "It was made for the fans" is meant to shut down criticism, it's true, but "It was made for the Black Community" won't save them from black critics. You can deny someone is a fan, it's a lot harder to do that with skin color or sexual orientation.

Just got back from watching it, and it was alright. It was nice to see an origin marvel movie that strayed from the formula, but in the process some of the new things they tried out didn't really work very well. While i liked Jude Law's character, the movie's attempt to subvert the traditional rivalry backstory just makes him feel pointless. When Carol says "I have been fighting with a hand tied behind my back the whole time" i was kind of mift. She beat Jude Law in their first fight by using her energy powers, so she is shown as stronger and more important than him from the beginning. If they had merged the supreme intelligence and his character in some way, it might have made for a more effective antagonist, even if it means removing Jude Law from the movie. The final 'fight' between him and Carol just hammers it home further. The movie might subvert a trope by not killing him off or have her fistfight him, but as a result he feels pointless. It may be tiresome for the hero to always fight someone with the same power as them, but Loke, Ironmonger, Bucky Barnes, Killmonger and Quill's dad feel more meaningful when they actually pose a threat. While we are on the subject of other marvel villains, the whole "Without us you are just human" moment worked much better in guardians 2 because the movie took more time to set up character relationships, which this movie has a general problem with.

I think making Yon-Rogg Carol's equal would actually ruin the point. Yon-Rogg and the Supreme Intelligence basically gas-light Carol the entire time she's with them. They constantly tell her that she's weak. That her emotions make her weaker. When Yon-Rogg fights her he intentionally does so on his terms where he knows he can win and when she uses her powers he calls her weak. They make her repress her powers so that she's easier to control. When she finally cuts loose it's incredibly satisfying. She realizes that she was greater than she was led to believe and that the ones who held her in chains, that gaslighters, were so weak. With that in mind, I enjoyed the hell out of that one-sided beat-down.

it feels like the only reason the plot of Guardians 1 happened was that Captain Marvel couldn't spare another 2 minutes to take out Ronans entire fleet there and then.

Maybe super heroes aren't big on mass murder and stuff.

She basically states her intention to dismantle the Kree Empire. That isn't going to happen without bloodshed.

Of course, that doesn't actually happen, in part because she shifts to "nah, I'm actually gonna help the skrulls find a new home," but there's no reason to leave Ronan alive when she's having Yogg-Ronn be messenger boy.

There's a difference between necessary blood-shed and slaughter. She beat them enough to force them to retreat, winning with minimum bloodshed. She'll kill more, sure, but not all of them. I hope. And I'm sure she find the Skrulls a new planet then turn her attention to the Kree.

Speaking of, does this mean we aren't getting a Secret Invasion movie?