So! Avengers: Endgame

[Trunkage]

Fans like it.

And yet, those images are case examples of how bland, hollow, and transparent the "feminist" take on Captain Marvel is, and how disingenuous the "defense" of it really is. Criticisms of the character prior to this are founded on a misapplication of gaze theory in comics, which in turn completely disregard comics' quasi-classical aesthetic tradition. By that I mean the characters are essentially drawn nude, but that nudity is censored by inking costumes onto them.

Yet here we have post-reboot Captain Marvel, in the same poses from the same angles, and in yet another skin-tight outfit that swaps flesh tones for blues and reds. Do I really need to link Girls in Yoga Pants to demonstrate exactly how facile the "aesthetic" reboot is? Whinge all you like about the 2005-2012 leotard, boots, gloves, and sash for showing skin, but that costume at least looked like she was wearing fabric because time had been taken to draw and ink relief, stitching, bunching, and texture.

The funny thing is, the short haircut is the one thing I like about MCU Captain Marvel.

Id gather that Feminists would say that the men are equally wearing body paint so it's cool. Equal opportunity etc. Etc. But thinking Feminists are a monolith is a bad assumption. There are probably Feminists who are and aren't happy with it.

I would say the old style look exactly as skin tight. The new one just covers more skin. So I don't understand you point about skin tight

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Captain Marvel was always a feminist hero. There was just a lower bar in the 70's. Ms. in Ms.Marvel at the time was a feminist action, as it only denoted gender, and was independent of marital status, unlike Miss and Mrs. That was a big deal then. Plus she was a physically strong and independent woman.

I mentioned all this and more in the thread on Captain Marvel itself, and argued the post-2012 comic reboot (and feature film) actually represents a step backward in portrayal of women characters in fiction.

 

[Saelune]

Fans like it.

And yet, those images are case examples of how bland, hollow, and transparent the "feminist" take on Captain Marvel is, and how disingenuous the "defense" of it really is. Criticisms of the character prior to this are founded on a misapplication of gaze theory in comics, which in turn completely disregard comics' quasi-classical aesthetic tradition. By that I mean the characters are essentially drawn nude, but that nudity is censored by inking costumes onto them.

Yet here we have post-reboot Captain Marvel, in the same poses from the same angles, and in yet another skin-tight outfit that swaps flesh tones for blues and reds. Do I really need to link Girls in Yoga Pants to demonstrate exactly how facile the "aesthetic" reboot is? Whinge all you like about the 2005-2012 leotard, boots, gloves, and sash for showing skin, but that costume at least looked like she was wearing fabric because time had been taken to draw and ink relief, stitching, bunching, and texture.

The funny thing is, the short haircut is the one thing I like about MCU Captain Marvel.

Id gather that Feminists would say that the men are equally wearing body paint so it's cool. Equal opportunity etc. Etc. But thinking Feminists are a monolith is a bad assumption. There are probably Feminists who are and aren't happy with it.

I would say the old style look exactly as skin tight. The new one just covers more skin. So I don't understand you point about skin tight

Well, there are 'feminists' who think transsexuals are a conspiracy by men to invade women-kind.

As for clothes, 100% of admiring asses in skin-tight clothing in End Game was man ass.

Captain Marvel was always a feminist hero. There was just a lower bar in the 70's. Ms. in Ms.Marvel at the time was a feminist action, as it only denoted gender, and was independent of marital status, unlike Miss and Mrs. That was a big deal then. Plus she was a physically strong and independent woman.

I mentioned all this and more in the thread on Captain Marvel itself, and argued the post-2012 comic reboot (and feature film) actually represents a step backward in portrayal of women characters in fiction.

Well, it isn't. Too many women and girls have been clearly encouraged and empowered by the film, too many little girls who see that they have a place in nerd/comic culture too, and that is a good thing.

Encouraging diversity works. DnD has been doing it, and DnD has managed to be a very diverse and progressive community overall. Comics need to catch up, considering they existed long before table-top RPGs did.

 

[Hawki]

As for clothes, 100% of admiring asses in skin-tight clothing in End Game was man ass.

That's "America's arse," you dirty red.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Also, just out of the blue here, but didn't anybody else find it a little weird that Hawkeye was having a casual family picnic just before the Snap happened? I mean, I know the dude is retired, but he really wasn't aware of anything that was happening on Earth prior, what with the alien attack on New York and Tony Stark going missing? You'd think he would've caught wind of that shit.

Here's the weirder part of it:
Thanos "snaps" in the middle of the day in Africa, right? Then how come it's also the middle of the day over in America?

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Well, it isn't.

Yes, it is and this is why.

Too many women and girls have been clearly encouraged and empowered by the film, too many little girls who see that they have a place in nerd/comic culture too, and that is a good thing.

"Geekdom", or whatever the fuck you want to call it, has traditionally been a transgressive space. Part and parcel of being a counter-culture, which is what it had been up until the rise of "geek chic" in the mid-oughts.

What was the difference? Social influence from outside the "geek" community gatekept from without by framing it not as a counter-culture, but an outgrouping. Of course, the moment advertisers and marketing executives realized geeks have money too (go figure, what with the entire IT industry being of, for, and by geeks), the tune changed in order to create a culture of mindless mass consumption based around cons, merch, and a self-sustaining cycle of establishing and maintaining "geek cred" measured exclusively by degree of consumption.

Captain Marvel broke the glass ceiling? But, I thought Wonder Woman broke the glass ceiling. Except Rogue One broke the glass ceiling. No, wait, I forgot, Ghostbusters broke the glass ceiling. Nope, The Force Awakens broke the glass ceiling. That can't be right, Fury Road broke the glass ceiling. But, didn't The Hunger Games break the glass ceiling? No, it was really Resident Evil that broke the glass ceiling. Clearly, it wasn't Terminator or Alien, those are like old movies with Ms. Males or insert talking point here, and it certainly wasn't Princess Leia because gold bikinis and George told her not to wear a bra.

As it is turtles all the way down, surely it must be glass ceilings all the way up. Just never mind that the only people actually pushing the notion "geekdom" wasn't a space for women, are the same marketing/advertising class now weaponizing feminism to push women into those spaces by trucking out the same talking points year after year, demonizing and outgrouping anyone with the dreaded "sexist" label should they dare to question it. That, or women are (yet again) being marketed to by one of the most pernicious gendered social pressure (read, gaslighting) campaigns since "real women shave their armpits".

Look, if your idea of equality and inclusion is being browbeaten into corporate pay piggy status on threat of being labeled a sexist, you do you. That's not me.

 

[Saelune]

Well, it isn't.

Yes, it is and this is why.

Too many women and girls have been clearly encouraged and empowered by the film, too many little girls who see that they have a place in nerd/comic culture too, and that is a good thing.

"Geekdom", or whatever the fuck you want to call it, has traditionally been a transgressive space. Part and parcel of being a counter-culture, which is what it had been up until the rise of "geek chic" in the mid-oughts.

What was the difference? Social influence from outside the "geek" community gatekept from without by framing it not as a counter-culture, but an outgrouping. Of course, the moment advertisers and marketing executives realized geeks have money too (go figure, what with the entire IT industry being of, for, and by geeks), the tune changed in order to create a culture of mindless mass consumption based around cons, merch, and a self-sustaining cycle of establishing and maintaining "geek cred" measured exclusively by degree of consumption.

Captain Marvel broke the glass ceiling? But, I thought Wonder Woman broke the glass ceiling. Except Rogue One broke the glass ceiling. No, wait, I forgot, Ghostbusters broke the glass ceiling. Nope, The Force Awakens broke the glass ceiling. That can't be right, Fury Road broke the glass ceiling. But, didn't The Hunger Games break the glass ceiling? No, it was really Resident Evil that broke the glass ceiling. Clearly, it wasn't Terminator or Alien, those are like old movies with Ms. Males or insert talking point here, and it certainly wasn't Princess Leia because gold bikinis and George told her not to wear a bra.

As it is turtles all the way down, surely it must be glass ceilings all the way up. Just never mind that the only people actually pushing the notion "geekdom" wasn't a space for women, are the same marketing/advertising class now weaponizing feminism to push women into those spaces by trucking out the same talking points year after year, demonizing and outgrouping anyone with the dreaded "sexist" label should they dare to question it. That, or women are (yet again) being marketed to by one of the most pernicious gendered social pressure (read, gaslighting) campaigns since "real women shave their armpits".

Look, if your idea of equality and inclusion is being browbeaten into corporate pay piggy status on threat of being labeled a sexist, you do you. That's not me.

I never said Captain Marvel 'broke the glass ceiling'. I said Captain Marvel was a feminist hero from the start.

And stop pretending sexism is a new concept. Its been around forever, including in 'geek culture'. Instead of getting mad at people wanting to end sexism, get mad at sexism.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

I never said Captain Marvel 'broke the glass ceiling'.

That is, however, how the movie's been and being marketed, your own commentary about how it inspires girls and women speaking to that, and that's the point. It's marketing.

I said Captain Marvel was a feminist hero from the start.

Carol Danvers was. The mantle...not so much. In fact, the argument could be made the period it was held by Monica Rambeau was vastly more progressive than Danvers'. And that's an argument I'd agree with, considering as I stated in the previous thread my opinion of post-2012 Captain Marvel is that it's fauxgressive trash.

Instead of getting mad at people wanting to end sexism, get mad at sexism.

I'll get mad at whomever I damn please, thank you. Especially when "people wanting to end sexism" are actively defending those who profit from it, and therefore have a vested interest in perpetuating it.

Let's take gender out of the equation for a second. I like Colin Kaepernick and strongly support both him, his stated opinions, and his right to voice them. Therefore, it deeply disappointed me when he accepted the Nike sponsorship, because Nike and its subsidies still engage in the same predatory and abusive labor practices today that it has for decades. The only thing that's changed is they have better PR, and American news media doesn't report about it. Nike offering Kaepernick the sponsorship deal was a brazen, transparent attempt on Nike's part to preemptively shield itself from criticism over its treatment of POC workers abroad, effectively weaponizing "wokeness" against itself.

Nike is by far from the only company embracing progressive politics and engaging in "woke" advertising to hide the skeletons in its closet. Remember my last post when I mentioned the ad push in the early 1900's for women to shave their legs and underarms? Gilette, the company now known for its "toxic masculinity" ad, started that shit. Coke, infamous for its Latin-American labor practices, widespread regulatory capture and government corruption, almost all of which still continue today, leads the field in woke advertising. And, of course, Google...oh, Google. Hell, Alphabet in sum.

And of course, this "new wave" in woke advertising came during, or shortly after, #MeToo started. The figure around whom the movement coalesced, Weinstein, being an outspoken "feminist" and avid "supporter" of feminist causes. Just like so many other Hollywood figures who faced allegations of sexual misconduct. In light of that, why shouldn't I try to judge for myself who and what actually move progressive causes forward, as opposed to those who would parasitize them, predate upon progressives, or attempt to divide and conquer through subversive marketing strategies?

And thus, I loop back to my original point that "feminism" in popular culture is really anything but. The individuals perpetuating and signal boosting these controversies -- on either side -- profit from them in the form of clicks, page and video views, and ad revenue. Why else is it the lion's share of ink spilled over the "controversies" surrounding Brie Larson and Captain Marvel lies with clickbaiters and op-ed writers? They have no interest in "ending" sexism; in fact, their financial interest lies in perpetuating it.

 

[Trunkage]

I never said Captain Marvel 'broke the glass ceiling'.

That is, however, how the movie's been and being marketed, your own commentary about how it inspires girls and women speaking to that, and that's the point. It's marketing.

Citation needed on this marketing thing. Particularly how this was done different to, say, Iron Man or Black Panther. Was it that they turned her into hero?

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Of all the heroes to fight Thanos, the two that give him most trouble are Captain Marvel and Scarlet Witch, both of whom were directly empowered by Infinity Stones. Anyone else enjoy the symbolism of Thanos almost literally getting overwhelmed by representations of his obsession?

 

[Casual Shinji]

Also, just out of the blue here, but didn't anybody else find it a little weird that Hawkeye was having a casual family picnic just before the Snap happened? I mean, I know the dude is retired, but he really wasn't aware of anything that was happening on Earth prior, what with the alien attack on New York and Tony Stark going missing? You'd think he would've caught wind of that shit.

Here's the weirder part of it:
Thanos "snaps" in the middle of the day in Africa, right? Then how come it's also the middle of the day over in America?

I can usually overlook inconsistencies like that. I didn't even have any real problem with the time travel rules (which apparently are all over the place), but it did bother me greatly that it was used for the movie to spin its wheels for like an hour.

 

[Hawki]

Why are you mad that people enjoy things

Am I mad? Or are YOU mad?

Think about it...

Anyone else enjoy the symbolism of Thanos almost literally getting overwhelmed by representations of his obsession?

No, because both instances are too short to mean anything, and Carol's holding the idiot ball during the fight.

 

[Saelune]

I never said Captain Marvel 'broke the glass ceiling'.

That is, however, how the movie's been and being marketed, your own commentary about how it inspires girls and women speaking to that, and that's the point. It's marketing.

I said Captain Marvel was a feminist hero from the start.

Carol Danvers was. The mantle...not so much. In fact, the argument could be made the period it was held by Monica Rambeau was vastly more progressive than Danvers'. And that's an argument I'd agree with, considering as I stated in the previous thread my opinion of post-2012 Captain Marvel is that it's fauxgressive trash.

Instead of getting mad at people wanting to end sexism, get mad at sexism.

I'll get mad at whomever I damn please, thank you. Especially when "people wanting to end sexism" are actively defending those who profit from it, and therefore have a vested interest in perpetuating it.

Let's take gender out of the equation for a second. I like Colin Kaepernick and strongly support both him, his stated opinions, and his right to voice them. Therefore, it deeply disappointed me when he accepted the Nike sponsorship, because Nike and its subsidies still engage in the same predatory and abusive labor practices today that it has for decades. The only thing that's changed is they have better PR, and American news media doesn't report about it. Nike offering Kaepernick the sponsorship deal was a brazen, transparent attempt on Nike's part to preemptively shield itself from criticism over its treatment of POC workers abroad, effectively weaponizing "wokeness" against itself.

Nike is by far from the only company embracing progressive politics and engaging in "woke" advertising to hide the skeletons in its closet. Remember my last post when I mentioned the ad push in the early 1900's for women to shave their legs and underarms? Gilette, the company now known for its "toxic masculinity" ad, started that shit. Coke, infamous for its Latin-American labor practices, widespread regulatory capture and government corruption, almost all of which still continue today, leads the field in woke advertising. And, of course, Google...oh, Google. Hell, Alphabet in sum.

And of course, this "new wave" in woke advertising came during, or shortly after, #MeToo started. The figure around whom the movement coalesced, Weinstein, being an outspoken "feminist" and avid "supporter" of feminist causes. Just like so many other Hollywood figures who faced allegations of sexual misconduct. In light of that, why shouldn't I try to judge for myself who and what actually move progressive causes forward, as opposed to those who would parasitize them, predate upon progressives, or attempt to divide and conquer through subversive marketing strategies?

And thus, I loop back to my original point that "feminism" in popular culture is really anything but. The individuals perpetuating and signal boosting these controversies -- on either side -- profit from them in the form of clicks, page and video views, and ad revenue. Why else is it the lion's share of ink spilled over the "controversies" surrounding Brie Larson and Captain Marvel lies with clickbaiters and op-ed writers? They have no interest in "ending" sexism; in fact, their financial interest lies in perpetuating it.

Marketing towards progress is a good thing. Marketing isn't going away, it could atleast be used for good rather than evil. You can pretend marketing is your excuse, but I doubt it.


Again, I am not arguing what you think I am arguing. I am arguing that Ms. Marvel was always a feminist hero. I never said she was the most feminist hero, so stop pretending I am.

In the US, money talks. It is the only reason anyone ever gave a fuck about Trump until he decided to go full White Supremacist. If money is what it will take for progress, so be it.

There is only one side supporting feminism.

We have what it takes to end sexism. You and me. It is not just on the celebrities or the journalists or politicians. It can end with us 'common people'.

 

[Saelune]

Why are you mad that people enjoy things

Am I mad? Or are YOU mad?

Think about it...

Anyone else enjoy the symbolism of Thanos almost literally getting overwhelmed by representations of his obsession?

No, because both instances are too short to mean anything, and Carol's holding the idiot ball during the fight.

You're right, I am mad that people enjoy oppressing women.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Personally I waiting till the new Spider-Man comes out. Mostly cause the person claiming to be from another dimension is *Mysterio*. I wouldnt be surprised if it turned out he's not from another dimension and the elemental monsters he's fighting are simply his own creations. All to make himself look like a hero.

Probably, yeah. Mysterio's shtick in all incarnations I know of is villain who uses special effects wizardry and other make-believe tricks to fuck with people's heads and make himself appear superpowered (which he generally isn't). There have probably been storyline where he used his shtick to make himself look the hero.

Thing is, everyone with some savviness about spidey villains will expect this, so if it were me, I'd subvert it somehow. Maybe the real Mysterio is playing everyone, Jake Gyllenhaal is not in on it, and he's just a regular dude who's made to believe he's a superhero, just like everyone else. Or maybe have a third party manipulate Spidey into thinking Gyllenhaal is a villain, even tho he's actually a genuine hero (maybe with a dark secret to make him seem suspicious to the audience).

Probably not gonna happen, but it'd be neat if the MCU got a villain that completely takes me by surprise. Iron Man 3 tried it with the Mandarin, but it didn't work for me because the MCU then was still big on the "evil corporate executive" trope and Killian just screamed it.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Anyone else enjoy the symbolism of Thanos almost literally getting overwhelmed by representations of his obsession?

No, because both instances are too short to mean anything, and Carol's holding the idiot ball during the fight.

Aw c'mon, you gotta enjoy some surface level symbolism like that! Like how the Gauntlet the Avengers make is a right-handed one to deliberately counter Thanos' left-handed or 'sinister' Gauntlet. These people didn't get English degrees for nothing you know XD

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

Marketing towards progress is a good thing. Marketing isn't going away, it could atleast be used for good rather than evil. You can pretend marketing is your excuse, but I doubt it.

You know, at this point I'm going to indulge myself a bit of a tangent. Your words here remind me of the shit I said 20-25 years ago when, as a high school I did the state legislature page circuit, volunteered for my local Democratic party, did all the glad-handing and canvassing, wrote the local papers, help fund raise, spoke out for issues I believed in at the time, and more.

To paraphrase my younger self, "globalizing towards progress is a good thing. Globalization isn't going away, it could at least be used for good rather than evil. You can pretend trade protectionism is your excuse, but I doubt it."

Then I got into college and was expected to be a big boy, and read for myself what "our guys" down south (like Pinochet) had really been up to for the past few decades, the ongoing pernicious effect NAFTA had on the Mexican and American economies and the circumstances behind its passing, the actual impact of Washington consensus policies on post-Soviet economies, and the realities of multi-national business ethics abroad. But most importantly, how all of that bore no semblance to "reality" as it was presented to Americans by our own media, to make us all feel good and righteous about American economic and military hegemony, how justified America is in playing world police, and how America and American corporations are proudly blazing the path to global capitalist utopia, regardless of outlet or those outlets' inherent biases.

To say that if I had the opportunity to go back in time and ***** slap some reality into my teenage self, I would, is the understatement of the century.

No, "marketing towards progress" is not a good thing, because your idea of "progress" is not corporations' idea of "progress". No, marketing is unlikely to go away, but it will never, ever be a force for good. You're only being tricked into thinking it can be.

It is the only reason anyone ever gave a fuck about Trump until he decided to go full White Supremacist.

Five billion dollars.

That's the amount of earned media that went to Trump during the 2016 election, counting primary and general. Depending on source, $5.6-5.9 billion if you go all the way back to June, 2015, when he first announced his bid.

Earned media is defined as the reporting, editorializing, and discussion of a given topic (in this case, Trump's candidacy), separate from sponsored/paid media in the form of direct advertisement. A talking head goes on TV and yells about Trump for ten minutes, that's earned media. Here's the key: earned media is quantified by estimating the value of ad buys during coverage of said topic, in other words it's an index of said topic's profitability, as it's how much income an outlet made covering it.

For 2016, Hillary received approximately $3.4 billion in earned media. That's about $8.4-9.4 billion total. Compared to the estimated $2.4 billion of hard and soft money, and independent expenditure, of 2016 for both candidates put together. To put that in perspective, 2012 was a $4 billion election, with about a 50/50 split in paid/earned media.

To say the amount of earned media Trump received was staggeringly unprecedented is the understatement of the decade. So unprecedented one cannot help but ask themselves, what led to this? The most straightforward answer is damning enough: Trump shot his mouth off, news outlets covered it, ratings and ad revenue went through the fuckin' roof, so news outlets just kept giving the people what they obviously wanted--a reality television show where the grand prize is access to the nuclear football--and laughed all the way to the bank. Just like they still are.

But, the truth's actually a little deeper than that. As our current media landscape stands, the last I checked, four multi-nationals control over 90% of media consumed by Americans: Disney, AT&T, National Amusements/Viacom, and Comcast. The Disney/Fox merger went through, relegating NewsCorp to also-ran status, and the AT&T/Time Warner merger went through. You might talk about the FANG's, but the truth is when it comes to big media, despite FANG's considerable size and reach, they're very tiny fish in a massive ocean. Three years ago (i.e. before the election) it was six.

Of course, we still have the handful of "old media" holdouts which nowadays are tech billionaires' vanity projects. So, here's the real funny thing. You just made an entire thread about access restrictions by the Trump administration...whose access is being limited? Are outlets owned by those four MNC's being targeted?

So who were the biggest beneficiaries of Trump admin deregulation and tax "reform"? The same people who put him in office on the back of five billion dollars' worth of earned media, that's who. You want to talk about fascism, there's your fucking fascism.

But please, do go on talking about how progressive Disney and its subsidiaries are.

 

[Marik2]

I shed some tears when captain murica went back to get married.