Even if she does, it's apparently for nothing, since the Kree Empire is still alive and well by GotG 1.Captain Marvelous said:
Dunno, but you could easily have "bad skrulls" do it. Maybe? I know SI is a thing that involves skrulls impersonating characters, but that's about it. But even Talos himself admits that there's blood on his hands, that the skrulls as a race aren't arbitrarily good or evil.
As I said, Ronan kills more people in the final battle of Guardians 1 than we see die on screen in this movie and Captain Marvel had already killed two spaceships worth of crew at this point. She is basically letting a terrorist go, knowing that her powers were the only deterrant keeping him from wiping out earth's population just to get to the Skrulls and that he will almost certainly go hunt after the Skrull diaspora somewhere else if she lets him go. Assuming that the MCU follows our calendar which this movie more or less confirms, Ronan would keep on going around the galaxy for almost 20 years after this and was never caught or stopped before the end of Guardians 1. That's why having Ronan in this movie doesn't work, because it makes it look like the hero enabled him to go on this long for no immediately clear or justifiable reason other than a presumed regard for the sanctity of life which Captain marvel never really consistently displaysAdam Jensen said:
They should have had him immediately flee. Like, that is what I was expecting, but instead they just...stared eachother for like, the longest minute ever. Instead it should have been him barely escaping her attack. I loved this movie, but that is definitely a weird moment that should have been different.CyanCat47 said:
The movie itself wasn't overbearingly feminist (although Just A Girl playing during a fight was corny as fuck).Saelune said:
I think the actual concern is that it will be Captain Marvel and her alone that will the chosen one to ultimately defeat and kill Thanos.Kenbo Slice said:
I don't think anybody's gonna "kill" Thanos. He's gonna die from tapping into too much power or some blameless bullshit like every other MCU villain. Disney can't have their heroes kill the villain. Ever notice how all the MCU baddies either kill each other or otherwise kill themselves?Samtemdo8 said:
I believe it is because her detractors think she does not deserve to beat Thanos because otherwise what was the point in developing Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Spiderman, Black Panther, if its this "Feminist Icon" that saves the day in the end, and she only just appeared this year?undeadsuitor said:
It's a 3 hour movie, but somehow Captain Marvel beats Thanos singlehandedly? Or maybe she makes some new friends and helps them with a problem.Samtemdo8 said:
I am merely just speaking about my impression about all this controversy regarding Captain Marvel combined with my experience of all these topics about "Feminist-Mary Sues"trunkage said:
When I heard the quote, I didn't think it was abrasive at all, I just saw someone trying to speak to their audience. But after someone pointing it out, I can understand their point of view.Dreiko said:I'm not entirely certain that is the same quote I had in mind but either way it's less about facial expression and more about uhh, neck movement, I guess?trunkage said:The quote is earlier in this thread. Pretty much says, "I want to hear from not just white 40 year old guys." Which, of course, should be offensive to anyone.Dreiko said:She said something along the lines of the movie not being made for white men while being smug and shaking her head in an annoying angle or some such.Neurotic Void Melody said:
I'll be glad to prove her wrong!
She later was apparently pressured by her publicist into walking these comments back somewhat with a tepid "I just wanna include more people not restrict some" and whatnot platitude. Though all that stuff is kinda noise when talking about the movie. It's all about the personality of the actress and her politics and whatnot. Completely unimportant stuff when in the context of a fictional story.
Could have she worded it nicer so it doesn't trigger white guys? Sure. Hence her point about not trying to exclude them later.
As a person who is 'targeted' by Larsen? People being offended are just making mountains out of molehills. It's like when you called her smug. Because smug now seems to mean 'I dont like what their saying' rather than a facial expression.
Point mainly is that this is just the actress' own personality that's abrasive and it has little to do with the movie. Sure, it was in connection to the movie, but it's unfair to blame the movie that has a ton of people working on it cause this one actress behaves the way she does. I can see blaming her all you want but you can't apply her flaws to the fictional world of the movie or even to the character that she portrays because that world is governed by the writers so she can say she hates white men or whatever but if the writer writes her into a neonazi concubine in the next one her character will morph into that irrespective of whatever her feelings on white men are. Even if she were to refuse to play that character and they got someone else to do it it'd still be the same character.
Separate art from the artist and judge works in a vacuum, that's the only fair approach.
Thanos is traditionally the architect of his own defeat so it would be entierly within keeping of his character.Johnny Novgorod said:
Man that made me giggle and think ?Okay guys, there is such a thing as too on the nose?Kenbo Slice said:
Isn't this what Emma Watson said in her feminist speech a few years back, about how feminism is often associated with man-hating (implying that it's associated with wanting to push men down to promote women basically) and how to strive to undo that and so on.trunkage said:When I heard the quote, I didn't think it was abrasive at all, I just saw someone trying to speak to their audience. But after someone pointing it out, I can understand their point of view.Dreiko said:I'm not entirely certain that is the same quote I had in mind but either way it's less about facial expression and more about uhh, neck movement, I guess?trunkage said:The quote is earlier in this thread. Pretty much says, "I want to hear from not just white 40 year old guys." Which, of course, should be offensive to anyone.Dreiko said:She said something along the lines of the movie not being made for white men while being smug and shaking her head in an annoying angle or some such.Neurotic Void Melody said:
I'll be glad to prove her wrong!
She later was apparently pressured by her publicist into walking these comments back somewhat with a tepid "I just wanna include more people not restrict some" and whatnot platitude. Though all that stuff is kinda noise when talking about the movie. It's all about the personality of the actress and her politics and whatnot. Completely unimportant stuff when in the context of a fictional story.
Could have she worded it nicer so it doesn't trigger white guys? Sure. Hence her point about not trying to exclude them later.
As a person who is 'targeted' by Larsen? People being offended are just making mountains out of molehills. It's like when you called her smug. Because smug now seems to mean 'I dont like what their saying' rather than a facial expression.
Point mainly is that this is just the actress' own personality that's abrasive and it has little to do with the movie. Sure, it was in connection to the movie, but it's unfair to blame the movie that has a ton of people working on it cause this one actress behaves the way she does. I can see blaming her all you want but you can't apply her flaws to the fictional world of the movie or even to the character that she portrays because that world is governed by the writers so she can say she hates white men or whatever but if the writer writes her into a neonazi concubine in the next one her character will morph into that irrespective of whatever her feelings on white men are. Even if she were to refuse to play that character and they got someone else to do it it'd still be the same character.
Separate art from the artist and judge works in a vacuum, that's the only fair approach.
Now, let's take an example of something that could equally be seen as abrasive around the same topic. This is my Prime Minister's speech on International Women's Day;
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/svgscomoiwdspeech0903/video/a12afbf8f2ef5cb0c790f4be50066577
Sorry, haven't found a clip without commentary on it that isn't part of some news corporation. TLDR: we aren't going to push men down to uplift women. Which hasn't been what any Feminist has said. It also implies that women just need to wait their turn before their allowed in, which is pretty much a summary of Patriarchy (which is a problem with a system and not a targeting of actual people unless they are corrupting the system.)
So, he's speaking to his audience (as a conservative). Don't worry, men. Women wont take your jobs. But trying to uplift women. This too could be said much better. I personally can see what he's trying to say and wont call him a sexist because he's made a gaffe. I don't hold Larsen, because who was commenting specifically on her movie, because she said a gaffe. I'll try to listen to what she meant, especially since she tried to clarify it.
