Captain Marvel Trailer

[Lord]

Hey everyone. I thought I'd create a discussion thread about the new Marvel Movie, Captain Marvel since I couldn't find one. I want to know how many people are planning on going to see it. And if anyone is interested.

I gotta say, I'm probably not going to go see it. The main lead looked like a bad actor. Samuel L. Jackson is a good actor, but I don't really think Nick Fury needs a backstory. We know everything we need to know about him. Just like Han Solo. The special effects look terrible, and the only indication of the plot given by the trailer is something about amnesia. AKA, the most overdone plot device ever.

Really, my only hope for this new movie is that the main character is merely a supporting role in Infinity War Part 2.

Part 2 of the Thanos storyline is probably going to result in Tony Stark dying, and possibly some of the other long-running characters like Thor and Captain America. If these characters get completely shafted so they can advertise Captain Marvel, I will be pissed. And after the recent Star Wars fiasco, I honestly believe that Disney may do just that.

At any rate, to summarize my view;
Captain Marvel looks aggressively mediocre. Don't have her steal the spotlight in the next Avengers Movie.

But maybe I'm in an absolute minority. What do you think of the Captain Marvel Trailer? And do you think you will be going to see it? If you will, why are you going to see it? For completions sake? Or because you find it genuinely interesting?

[JadedDM]

That's weird. When I am completely uninterested in a movie, I don't make a thread about how uninterested I am in it.

Yes, you are in the minority. Lots of people are excited to see this film, including me.

But hey, I give you credit for not complaining that she didn't smile enough.

[GloatingSwine]

That's weird. When I am completely uninterested in a movie, I don't make a thread about how uninterested I am in it.

I guess you're not internetting hard enough then.

(There's a certain tone about the OP that indicates that this thread is probably heading for lockville though.)

[Lord]

I guess you're not internetting hard enough then.

(There's a certain tone about the OP that indicates that this thread is probably heading for lockville though.)

I made this thread because I wanted to get people's honest opinions on the upcoming movie. My goal was merely to gauge the level of interest in it so I could make an objective assessment. As part of that goal, I stated that I thought the movie looked mediocre.

I'm not looking to start a flame war.

[Angel Bob]

I'm all for the cause for which Captain Marvel has become the flagbearer, but the trailer does not really inspire me. Carol Danvers hasn't been made out to be a particularly unique or compelling character, and her powers seem like a grab bag that's hard to summarize and even harder to take seriously. The plot also seems pretty generic.

Bear in mind, this opinion is coming from a casual MCU viewer who has never read the comics. The only MCU movies I've really liked have been the ones that do something unique (Black Panther, Ragnarok) or are just plain popcorn-eating fun (Avengers 1, Ragnarok again). So far, Captain Marvel doesn't seem like it'll be either of those. Kamala Khan would have been a better choice if the MCU wanted to attract me specifically.

That said, I am surrounded by MCU-loving friends, mostly women, who will no doubt arrange a group viewing when it hits theaters. So I'll probably still end up seeing it, and hopefully it will exceed the expectations set by the trailer.

[Legato Endless]

The main lead looked like a bad actor and said actor has been acting very unprofessional on social media.

Is this based on her previous output? I've seen Larsen in a few other films to have an informed opinion of her. If you asked me to name the top five worst high profile actresses in Hollywood, she wouldn't come to my mind. Although to advocate for the other side, it's possible she has an anemic performance because of bad direction. That can happen to any actor.


Samuel L. Jackson is a good actor, but I don't really think Nick Fury needs a backstory.

Is this an origin story for him? I thought he was just getting weaved in to the adventure to enhance audience investment. The same way the film is an easy excuse to bring back Coulson. I definitely agree with a dislike for Han Solo style prequels. If Fury loses his hair, an eye, gets his his car from Winter Soldier and gets promoted to Director in this film I'll audibly groan in the theater.


Really, my only hope for this new movie is that the main character is merely a supporting role in Infinity War Part 2.

I mean, she'll have a supporting role. But the degree of it will probably vary considering what your standards are for it. Avengers 4 has a battle sequence with forty characters. The Swan song for the original 6, the other survivors like Nebula and Antman, the extremely likely resurrection of killed characters, the conclusion with Thanos, and rumored new characters will mean Carol will be sharing the screen with a vast ensemble. She'll probably be valuable in a key moment at the absolute minimum however because otherwise people will be underwhelmed by the setup from Avengers 3' stinger.


Part 2 of the Thanos storyline is probably going to result in Tony Stark dying, and possibly some of the other long-running characters like Thor and Captain America. If these characters get completely shafted so they can advertise Captain Marvel, I will be pissed. And after the recent Star Wars fiasco, I honestly believe that Disney may do just that.

I don't imagine this will happen. Tony already was nerfed to keep him from annihilating Rogers in Civil War because the name of the movie was Cap 3. Stark kicked off the MCU and Avengers 3 set him up as central to the grand ending of Phase 3. (Especially if the rumors of Phase 4 being structured differently are true)

[Aedilred]

I did not find the trailer particularly inspiring.

I have however been around the block enough times to know that that means precisely nothing when it comes to how likely I am to enjoy the film. I will watch it. I will not go so far as to say I am excited for it, but that's partly because I'm jaded about such thing and partly because all the excitement quota I allow myself for Marvel films is used up by Endgame.

[Tyndmyr]

Hey everyone. I thought I'd create a discussion thread about the new Marvel Movie, Captain Marvel since I couldn't find one. I want to know how many people are planning on going to see it. And if anyone is interested.

I think we talked about it some. Anyways, I gotta say, I plan to see the film, and am looking forward to it. I'll respond a bit to your post, and then go into something of a ramble about it, I think.


I gotta say, I'm probably not going to go see it. The main lead looked like a bad actor and said actor has been acting very unprofessional on social media. Samuel L. Jackson is a good actor, but I don't really think Nick Fury needs a backstory. We know everything we need to know about him. Just like Han Solo. The special effects look terrible, and the only indication of the plot given by the trailer is something about amnesia. AKA, the most overdone plot device ever.

Honestly, I have no idea what the actor did or didn't do on social media. I find that my life is not improved by following celebrities on twitter, and honestly don't use the platform at all. Nothing of value is lost. Agreed that Nick Fury doesn't *need* a backstory, and that Han Solo was incredibly unnecessary, but I doubt this movie will be solely backstory. It's introducing a new character, so it's likely going to be largely her story, even if it intersects with characters we already know.

The amnesia is straight from the comics, I'm afraid. I'll agree it's not a new plot device at all, but...it's like poking fun at superman for wearing a cape, yknow?


Really, my only hope for this new movie is that the main character is merely a supporting role in Infinity War Part 2.

Part 2 of the Thanos storyline is probably going to result in Tony Stark dying, and possibly some of the other long-running characters like Thor and Captain America. If these characters get completely shafted so they can advertise Captain Marvel, I will be pissed. And after the recent Star Wars fiasco, I honestly believe that Disney may do just that.

These characters will only die if the actors want to stop playing the roles. Disney has gotten so much money from Iron Man that it'd be financially insane for them to off him to advertise for a character that...already had her movie. Nothing about that makes sense. Disney freaking loves money, and will make movies around these superheroes until they stop working for them or die, and then probably crank out a couple more sequels anyways.

Sure Star Wars has gone to hell, but it's an entirely different unit and team.


At any rate, to summarize my view;
Captain Marvel looks aggressively mediocre. Don't have her steal the spotlight in the next Avengers Movie.

But maybe I'm in an absolute minority. What do you think of the Captain Marvel Trailer? And do you think you will be going to see it? If you will, why are you going to see it? For completions sake? Or because you find it genuinely interesting?

The MCU has had a lot of trailers that give away fairly little about the film. This doesn't mean that it's going to be a bad movie. I'm going for the same reason that seeing every other MCU film recently wasn't really a question. They have a great track record. Yeah, maybe there was reason to be skeptical for GotG 1, when they were all "a racoon and a talking tree, sure". Or for ant man. Both of those have been amazing, though. At a certain point, you've got to look at the options of what to watch in the theater, and figure out what's likely going to be a good time. Something from the MCU has better odds than nearly anything else liable to hit the theater.

Now, are they all similar in some respects, or are sequels? Sure. So is everything else. Seriously, look at the top ten movies this year, and tell me which of them are not sequels, part of an extended universe, or a remake? The answer is none of them. You could argue for Venom, since the whole Spiderverse thing is new, but otherwise? A new mission impossible film isn't unique either.

So, looking at the cinematic universes out there, where else am I going to have a fun time. Star Wars? Please. That's a descent into cash grabbing boredom. The DCU? Uh, well, hopefully Aquaman is okay. The DCU has not had a good run so far. Okay, Deadpool is pretty great and has had two so far, with a third announced, and X-men films are good exactly two thirds of the time, but...both of those are also marvel based. If you want to watch good movies, marvel films are a great bet. Beats the crap out of the next Oceans whatever or the dumpster fire that is Ralph 2.

So, step back for a minute...test audiences, when they like a trailer, when asked what they want to see more of, invariably say they want more information about the movie. Makes sense, right? If you liked the trailer, you want to know more. This has led to a feedback loop in which many trailers essentially give away the entire plot. The MCU has enough clout to finally put this into the ground, and release trailers that show the character and tell you very little of the plot. This is a godsend, and ought to be lauded and copied 'round the film industry. Sure, you may not know all that much from watching this trailer, or the Endgame trailer, but that's not the purpose of trailers. That's the purpose of the movie itself.

Now, if you have low expectations, that's fine. Stay home opening night, and see what people say. That's a perfectly fine strategy. However, given their batting average so far, I'm not overly worried that my time'll be utterly wasted by this film. If the MCU starts churning out bombs the way the Star Wars team has, I'll revisit my assessment, but until then, cheers, lets watch some cinema.

[Lord]

Is this based on her previous output? I've seen Larsen in a few other films to have an informed opinion of her. If you asked me to name the top five worst high profile actresses in Hollywood, she wouldn't come to my mind. Although to advocate for the other side, it's possible she has an anemic performance because of bad direction. That can happen to any actor.



Is this an origin story for him? I thought he was just getting weaved in to the adventure to enhance audience investment. The same way the film is an easy excuse to bring back Coulson. I definitely agree with a dislike for Han Solo style prequels. If Fury loses his hair, an eye, gets his his car from Winter Soldier and gets promoted to Director in this film I'll audibly groan in the theater.



I mean, she'll have a supporting role. But the degree of it will probably vary considering what your standards are for it. Avengers 4 has a battle sequence with forty characters. The Swan song for the original 6, the other survivors like Nebula and Antman, the extremely likely resurrection of killed characters, the conclusion with Thanos, and rumored new characters will mean Carol will be sharing the screen with a vast ensemble. She'll probably be valuable in a key moment at the absolute minimum however because otherwise people will be underwhelmed by the setup from Avengers 3' stinger.



I don't imagine this will happen. Tony already was nerfed to keep him from annihilating Rogers in Civil War because the name of the movie was Cap 3. Stark kicked off the MCU and Avengers 3 set him up as central to the grand ending of Phase 3. (Especially if the rumors of Phase 4 being structured differently are true)

I know that Stark is a pillar of the MCU. But you have to keep in mind that Robert Downey Jr. lost interest in the role years ago. From what I've heard his contract costs more and more to pay with every movie. From a storytelling perspective it makes sense to kill off someone major in the finale of the Thanos plotline. And if you're going to kill off someone major you may as well kill off that one guy who is costing you massive amounts to keep playing the role.

The other options would be Captain America, or Thor, or one of the other avengers. But while all of them are well known actors as their respective roles, none of them have as illustrious a career as Robert Downey Jr. They aren't in a position to argue for as big a paycheck.

Plus I think there was a press release that Stark wouldn't be appearing in any more Spider Man films. So that kind of indicates that something will happen to take him out of the picture.

As for Avengers: End Game, I don't actually think there will be much of an ensemble. They killed off most of the cast in Infinity War. Obviously a bunch of them are going to come back. You can't have a Black Panther sequel if all the leads are dead. But at the same time I suspect that the supporting characters are going to return toward the end.

Most of the focus will probably thus be on the original six avengers.

Which is why I am concerned about Captain Marvel. Since they teased her presence I'm afraid that she'll show up and get relentlessly shilled in an attempt to make her seem cool. Studios always do this when introducing a new character and it never works. It only makes the audience despise the new blood for outshining the characters they are invested in. A few years ago I would have had faith that the MCU would avoid such a pitfall. But Disney has been making all kinds of poor marketing decisions lately and I'm afraid some of the idiocy will bleed over from the Star Wars franchise.

[Legato Endless]

Marvel's handled Vision, a quasi messianic figure with powers out stripping the rest of the Avengers (barring maybe Storm Breaker Thor) fairly reasonably in keeping him from overshadowing everyone else. He also has a personality more prone to being obnoxiously shilled than her archetype, so I'm not too worried there.

Again it's subjective. She gets to do something cool and be the big gun still has a lot of room as opposed to her implicitly invalidating the beloved veterans into a cheering squad. I don't think Marvel will pull that, but you are right that it's obnoxiously common a marketing gimmick with sequels.

Even if Captain Marvel is a failure, I imagine they'll retool her. Not in time for Avengers 4 but certainly for later films. The same way they discarded everything except General Ross from The Incredible Hulk movie, Thor Ragnorok taking a very direction than the two prequels, or quietly giving a slight nod as they shoved Widow and Banner's unpopular romance out.

Based on the batting average of Phase 3, I expect this to be minimally much better than The Dark World, which is why the trailers aren't much of a factor for me in seeing the film.

[Magic_Hat]

... probably going to result in Tony Stark dying, and possibly some of the other long-running characters like Thor and Captain America...

HA! HA! HA! :smallbiggrin:

That's hysterical! Marvel/Disney permanently killing off such beloved characters and thus not being able to make more merchandise around them. What? Do you think they're trying to do something original or unexpected? What series have you been watching?

[Darth Ultron]

I won't go see it in the theater for sure. But sure I'll get around to watching it at least once.

I'm sure it will be ruined at the start: they will simply try to hard to make the perfect Political movie, and they might even do that, but they won't be making a Good Super Heroine or even Action Movie.

Even just as a character Captain Marvel(Carol Danvers) is just a boring fictional character. She is a bad as Superman, sigh, ok she can blow up the Earth with her pinky finger..so sigh lets watch a movie where the character ''forgets" to do anything. Basically we will get the bad CGI spam that we get in modern Superman movies. Where characters fight and get tossed around and through cities...and it's utterly meaningless.



That's hysterical! Marvel/Disney permanently killing off such beloved characters and thus not being able to make more merchandise around them. What? Do you think they're trying to do something original or unexpected? What series have you been watching?

Well, not ''permanently", of course. They would never do that. But you can get the LAST OFFICIAL time each actor will EVER play the character. So it's a ''death'', of sorts.


The big thing will be the character switch: They want to get rid of the Old ''Wrong" Classic Characters and replace them with the New ''Right" Modern Characters.

So we get African American Captain America, Thor Girl and Iron Woman, for example.

Basically what they have done in the comics.....

[Sholos]

Not everything is an anti-male, anti-white conspiracy.

I have moderately high Hope's for Captain Marvel. I like Larson as an actor and I'm looking forward to seeing a younger, less jaded Nick Fury. Also hyped to be getting back to cosmic Marvel.

[Olinser]

My take is from what I've seen from the trailers and the movie staff official word, is that this movie takes itself way, WAY too seriously.

Right now I'm in the mode of, 'will not watch in theatres unless I hear highly complimentary things from friends or reviewers I actually trust'

[theNater]

The main lead looked like a bad actor and said actor has been acting very unprofessional on social media.
The main lead is Brie Larson, who has been acting professionally for two decades and who won Best Actress at the 2016 Oscars. I'm fairly sure her acting skills are up to the challenge.

It surprises me that you know her social media behavior but not her acting credentials or, apparently, her name. Does that seem strange to anyone else?

[Aotrs Commander]

My take is from what I've seen from the trailers and the movie staff official word, is that this movie takes itself way, WAY too seriously.

I really hope not.

But... I mean, it has Phil Coulson in it, it can't possibly be that straight-laced...



I have, after the last thread on this topic, decided that teaser trailers are worth paying vasically no attention to at all other than to nod and go "yes, that is a movie coming out" and wait until the subsequent trailers, since they are usually very bad indicators of the actual tone and quality of the film. (Case in point, the Avengers Endgame trailer is pretty bleh.) Anythnig more than that is likely to get me unreasonably het-up about things, and it's not doing either me, nor the movie (and/or cast) any favours.

That aside, after what I said on the previous thread and some thought and reflection, I am entirely looking forward to seeing a cool, professional, composed soldier hero if that is what Carol is going to be - the proviso is that is what she is, and not just a female version of the flat, dull reactionless protagonist, or almsot as bad, Female Batman. (As I have said before, I simply do not LIKE Batman.) I am totally down with, say, female superhero Teal'c. That'd be frickin' awesome.



But whatever... Just... Please for the love of frack, Marvel, try and hit this one right out of the park? After the... agressive moribunity of the new series of Doctor Who (not knocking it out of the park) and the heavy-ham-handedness of Supergirl this season, I'd appreciate, y'know, something GOOD with a female protagonist that isn't animated (*tips helment to She-Ra*) and for this really to not be the first ball you guys and girls have ever dropped (well, no more than Hulk, anyway, and even that wasn't bad). I mean, it can't be hard, with Samual L fury and Phi Coulson as the supporting cast. Just... Blow it out of the water? Please? I promise I might kill you last-ish when I eviscerate the planet - fair?

[Lord]

The main lead is Brie Larson, who has been acting professionally for two decades and who won Best Actress at the 2016 Oscars. I'm fairly sure her acting skills are up to the challenge.

It surprises me that you know her social media behavior but not her acting credentials or, apparently, her name. Does that seem strange to anyone else?

She won best actress? Weird.

I didn't see so much as a shred of personality or pathos in the entire trailer. I may as well have been staring at a brick wall for all the acting ability Brie Larson demonstrated.

[GloatingSwine]

She's a brainwashed super soldier for a questionably moral alien empire who is starting to be troubled by memories that had been suppressed as she comes into contact with an unfamiliar environment.

How do you think she should act to convey that?

[theNater]

She won best actress? Weird.

I didn't see so much as a shred of personality or pathos in the entire trailer. I may as well have been staring at a brick wall for all the acting ability Brie Larson demonstrated.
You getting a mistaken impression from a trailer isn't that weird. People get wrong impressions from trailers every day.

You could maybe clear up some of your confusion by watching, I dunno, a Brie Larson highlight reel? Or the movie she won best actress for?

Or you could just say over and over what impression you got from the trailer, I guess. It's your life.

[Delicious Taffy]

She's a brainwashed super soldier for a questionably moral alien empire who is starting to be troubled by memories that had been suppressed as she comes into contact with an unfamiliar environment.

How do you think she should act to convey that?
Pretty much this. Like, how "much" acting do you expect in 2-second clips of a character walking past an airplane, standing in a crowd, listening to someone talk, or sitting down on a train?

[HMS Invincible]

Pretty much this. Like, how "much" acting do you expect in 2-second clips of a character walking past an airplane, standing in a crowd, listening to someone talk, or sitting down on a train?

Maybe they need to show her writing into her super hero diary? Like iron Man or Captain America.

[Darth Ultron]

She's a brainwashed super soldier for a questionably moral alien empire who is starting to be troubled by memories that had been suppressed as she comes into contact with an unfamiliar environment.

As if the politics and the god like super powers were not enough...this might overly doom the movie. Simply put, it means that at least half...maybe two thirds of the movie will NOT be about the main character with her real true personality. Sure by the climax she will remember who she is and save the world by knocking the moon out of orbit, but until then she will be other characters in personality.

[Dragonus45]

Son sometimes I few like I may well be one of the last 4 or 5 people who are real big fans of the original Captain Marvel (when a characters only notable aspect is that he actually bothered to stay dead they aren’t likely to keep a dedicated fan base I guess) , and while I like Carol as a character most of her time as Captain Marvel has been during what I think of as Marvel’s eternal dumpster fire filled with tires phase. But the people doing the movies have yet to lead me wrong so I’m sure they can make something good here. My only real worry is the way it’s being set up in the trailer makes me think they may be doing a more villainous turn for Mar Vell which is pretty much the only way they are going to really piss me off.

Incidentally I feel very similar about the casting of Brie Larson. It wasn’t what I was expecting but the marvel people have yet to do wrong by me here so I’m not gonna judge anything till we see the finish line.

[Calthropstu]

That's weird. When I am completely uninterested in a movie, I don't make a thread about how uninterested I am in it.

Yes, you are in the minority. Lots of people are excited to see this film, including me.

But hey, I give you credit for not complaining that she didn't smile enough.

I am also uninterested in the movie. I am not only uninterested, I loathe the entire Marvel franchise and what it has become.

I loved the first 2 avengers movies. I enjoyed the iron man movies. I enjoyed the hulk movies.

But they took it too far. And it became stupid and convoluted and boring.

So no, I will not be seeing this movie or any other marvel movie because I know it will be crap, just like all the other movies they've been making for the last 5 years. And he is not in the minority. In fact, comic book movie enthusiasts are the minority. The vast minority.

[Keltest]

I am also uninterested in the movie. I am not only uninterested, I loathe the entire Marvel franchise and what it has become.

I loved the first 2 avengers movies. I enjoyed the iron man movies. I enjoyed the hulk movies.

But they took it too far. And it became stupid and convoluted and boring.

So no, I will not be seeing this movie or any other marvel movie because I know it will be crap, just like all the other movies they've been making for the last 5 years. And he is not in the minority. In fact, comic book movie enthusiasts are the minority. The vast minority.

I would like to see a citation on... just, all of this.

[JadedDM]

In fact, comic book movie enthusiasts are the minority. The vast minority.
Uh-huh. And so your explanation for how these movies make massive amounts of money despite the fact that nobody apparently likes them is..?

[Calthropstu]

Uh-huh. And so your explanation for how these movies make massive amounts of money despite the fact that nobody apparently likes them is..?

Oh, I never said no one likes them. Millions have enjoyed them.

But since there are billions of people in the world so the number of people who HAEN'T vastly outnumbers those who have... thus putting you in the minority.

Admittedly, I too am a minority, probably an even smaller minority. But the condescending tone of the quote I posted made me want to one up him.

Nothing I posted was incorrect.

Now of the people I have personally talked to, I hear mixed feelings. Some seem to dislike a lot of what Mar el is doing, but those who dislike all seem to ha e different reasons.

Those who look forward to it all seem to quote the same reasons touted here. While I personally will not watch it, I know many who will. But I know many times more who won't. So again, minority.

[Legato Endless]

Ehhh. That seems markedly misleading as arguments go. That's like arguing the majority of planets in the Solar System don't enjoy movies. It's literally true but irrelevant to any practical context. Almost any fandom outside of soccer isnt enjoyed by the majority of humanity.

The majority of people globally don't own a television to watch. In terms of relevant context, the MCU is the highest grossing film franchise, easily eclipsing Star Wars. A film series the majority of Americans haven't seen a single installment of.

The films haven't yet stumbled overall either in terms of overall sales. (http://collider.com/marvel-movies-box-office/#worldwide-totals-ranked) Antman isn't Ironman but phase 3 hasn't yet showed signs of decline. It won't last forever, but for now it's shown shocking endurance despite the risk of saturation. I'm fairly sure that's the context JadedDM was referring to. Not a headcount of how many people total on Terra Firma are going. I also think this is what Lord is asking, as a gauge of relevant interest (considering he's invested in Avengers 4 but not this film) but OP may well correct my mistake here.

It's fine to not enjoy things that are popular. I know in my bones some things a lot of people like are silly but I don't begrudge them that.


Sure by the climax she will remember who she is and save the world by knocking the moon out of orbit...

Given the quality of Inhumans I think I'd be okay with this happening.

[Tyndmyr]

So no, I will not be seeing this movie or any other marvel movie because I know it will be crap, just like all the other movies they've been making for the last 5 years. And he is not in the minority. In fact, comic book movie enthusiasts are the minority. The vast minority.

If you hate all other marvel films from the past five years, then skipping this one is probably a good call for you.

However, going by the numbers, their popularity has not diminished over that period, and has only apparently grown stronger.

As for comic book movie enthusiasts being the minority, of the top ten grossing films this year, six were comic book movies. All three of the top three were.

It appears that we are not only the majority, but kind of ludicrously so. The films are not merely outperforming any other genre, they're usually outperforming every other genre combined.

[Lord]

Pretty much this. Like, how "much" acting do you expect in 2-second clips of a character walking past an airplane, standing in a crowd, listening to someone talk, or sitting down on a train?

Tony Stark managed to write himself into pop culture in one scene of sitting inside a car talking with some soldiers. He perfectly established his character, what he was about, and the core conflict of his character. And he did it without any flashy displays of power.

I'm not expecting to have a full grip on the character's identity in a trailer. But I do expect to see some indication that she HAS a personality. And no, being a brainwashed supersoldier is no excuse. Even a brainwashed, stoic character can have personality traits; it just takes proper writing. And that's assuming she is brainwashed. I saw no indication she was from the trailer. I only saw someone hinting they were giving her superpowers.

Anyway, maybe Brie Larson is a good actor. If so I suppose I can put my blame on poor direction. But that's even worse. A movie can survive a bad actor much more easily than it can a bad director.

Besides, the purpose of a trailer is to show you what it is about.

Compare Captain Marvel to the Dark Knight Trailer. The Joker barely shows up, aside from his narration and yet his presence seeps into the entire thing. Heath Ledger gives you a very clear idea of just who the Joker is, despite hardly showing up. You also get to see Batman, Bruce Wayne, Gorden, Rachel, and Harvey Dent. All of these people have their individual personalities and roles in the story explained. That is a good trailer. It gets you hyped for the characters and gave you an idea of who they are and what they are doing.

The Captain Marvel trailer is just a loosely put together mess of action sequences, glued together by a mediocre performance. It's a bad trailer. Even Samuel L. Jackson can't change that.

Now I will grant that it is possible that the movie will be the greatest thing ever and the trailer presented it poorly. I loved John Carter of Mars, and that had one of the worst advertising campaigns in history. But the purpose of trailers is to tell the audience why they should care about a movie. Nothing in this trailer made me care. Far from it, it made me care even less. It takes itself way too seriously for a movie about someone in spandex, and if I wanted to see a dark, gritty, serious superhero movie, I'd go see Avengers: End Game.

I'll probably adopt a wait and see approach on this. If people really like it, I guess I'll check it out.

[SuperPanda]

My read of trailers:


Trailer 1, 0:54 - small smile (or scowl) as she says - it's hard to explain. Expression clearly shows that she is aware of how strange what she is about to say is and is apprehensive about being believed - shows that at this point in the film she either trusts Fury or wants him to trust her and is concerned he will not.

1:04 - smiles and comradery with another pilot - likely a mentor figure from her original life.

1:09 - looking up at the ropes - slight change in expression followed by scene of her failure - can infer a fear or trepidation that she pushes through (and a well founded one in this case) - powers into super cut of her getting knocked down - infers a determined character who is accustom to failure but doesn't let it control her. This is the editing doing the lifting rather than the actress but it is also something the actress can't really show in the space of a trailer on her own power either.

1:24 - Child-Carol smiling big in a co-cart or something - connecting her identity as a pilot and 1:26 Can't see the actress's face to well but the slow motion she makes to touch the stars in her cockpit after her fighter jet apparently reached orbit (and she is likely about to die) connects to that childhood thrill but in a more somber and adult way (as one might expect in what the shot suggests would be one's last minutes).

Trailer 2 - that smirk at 0:25 after "Heroes, Noble Warrior Heroes" suggests that she is having fun with the conversation - either because she is needlessly exadgerating things or she is enjoying that Fury seems to be following/buying things

0:54 - there micro-expressions of concern and confusion as she wakes up - again the editing is doing a good amount of lifting in the trailer but this connects back to that slight insecurity in trailer 1 when she's talking to Fury in the car - from these hints we can suggest that she hangs her hat on being larger-than-life but is insecure about her actual identity (which fits the apparent plot device of finding her origin as well).

0:59 - throwing the hang-ten sign to her mentor/friend as the plan starts shows that confidence and strength that comes from having failed a lot and overcome that failure in one simple motion.

~1:13 - "You know how to fly this thing" to "Yes" once again shows a little bit of a prankster side to her while teasing the insecurity (We'll see) and confidence (yes) conflict that the trailers are really setting up.

The head nod at 1:30 shows the same thing.

Conclusions:

I think the reason it is so hard for them to showcase Carol's personality in these trailers is that the arc they are going for with her character is that she starts out projecting fale bravado - trying to be what other people want/need her to be and to fill everyone's expectations. She starts off knowing that everyone thinks lesser of her and expects her to fail and is constantly trying to overcome that - but she's trying so hard that she doesn't allow herself to ask what she wants or who she is. Either at the opening of the film or by the end of the first act she has a crisis of confidence and starts searching for her past - throughout act 2 she learns who she was and finds a way to embrace that identity rather than running away from it. Only through being confident in who she really is and where she comes from does she find the inner-strength to realize the potential others expected of her.

She's going to be a powerful, capable, character who has always been told she came from "lesser" origins and has been trying to overcome that. This struggle is going to give her the confidence to shine (literally) later in the story but it will be her major road block at the start. Tony was proud to a fault and needed to learn humility (over and over and over again). Carol will likely be a mirror in that she'll project pride at a Tony like level, but it will be to mask the shame of being "lesser." She'll have to learn that "Pride is not the opposite of shame, it is its source." - and through accepting her total self she find the confidence, and power, she was seeking.

[Dr.Samurai]

She's a brainwashed super soldier for a questionably moral alien empire who is starting to be troubled by memories that had been suppressed as she comes into contact with an unfamiliar environment.

How do you think she should act to convey that?
Like a normal person. Meaning, with emotion. Even brainwashed people and amnesiac people have emotions and react to things.

This isn’t about “the pretty girl should smile more”. It’s about why she looks so absolutely apathetic and uninterested in her own movie. I don’t care to see this movie and I don’t know if I don’t care as much as Carol Danvers doesn’t care.

[Keltest]

Like a normal person. Meaning, with emotion. Even brainwashed people and amnesiac people have emotions and react to things.

This isn’t about “the pretty girl should smile more”. It’s about why she looks so absolutely apathetic and uninterested in her own movie. I don’t care to see this movie and I don’t know if I don’t care as much as Carol Danvers doesn’t care.

Ignoring the fact that she is very much not a "normal person", even regular military elites are generally not known for being wildly emotive, let alone ones that have significant memory issues.

[Erys]

New Trailer out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GX33bIOA5aA

They just keep getting better and better. $$

[oudeis]

OK, two trailers in and I can say that they have completely failed to engage my enthusiasm. They are trying way too hard for cool, tough deadpan snarker and ended up with smug, self-impressed, and condescending.

[Xyril]

I won't go see it in the theater for sure. But sure I'll get around to watching it at least once.

I'm sure it will be ruined at the start: they will simply try to hard to make the perfect Political movie, and they might even do that, but they won't be making a Good Super Heroine or even Action Movie.

Even just as a character Captain Marvel(Carol Danvers) is just a boring fictional character. She is a bad as Superman, sigh, ok she can blow up the Earth with her pinky finger..so sigh lets watch a movie where the character ''forgets" to do anything.


Captain Marvel's had so many changes to her power set in the comics that we don't actually know where she stands right now, and I don't think the trailers have clarified that at all.

Also, for the record, a decent percentage of Superman movies and stories are pretty great, despite the fact that he is quite literally always "as bad as Superman." I mean, from a certain stunted, childish conception of narrative conflict, an unbeatable hero would seem to naturally eliminate any sense of suspense or uncertainty, but the majority of works move beyond that. (Super)man vs. man would be pretty boring, but when you consider how many others in the DC universe have comparable levels of power (including an entire race that has literally the exact same power set as Supes), you've pretty much got classical man vs. man conflicts where the villain really does have a chance to win. Plus, at least in the comics, some of my favorite Superman stories weren't centered around (super)man vs. (super)man, but rather something more like man vs. self or man vs. society. Say what you will about darker and edgier modern media, but the stories that center around the alienating nature of absolute power or the struggle to stay connected to a world that distrusts you can be very compelling when done well.

Also, @Lord, nothing validates an argument like having Darth Ultron 150% in your corner.

[Xyril]

Like a normal person. Meaning, with emotion. Even brainwashed people and amnesiac people have emotions and react to things.


Just curious, how much have you spent following the MCU, Marvel in general, and genre fiction in general?

Your assertion isn't really true in real life. (Well, I mean it is arguably true, but kind of judgey to call those folks who don't react the way most people do "not normal.)

In Marvel, and genre fiction in general, on the other hand, your assertion is pretty frequently false. In Jessica Jones, for example, one of the most terrifying things about Kilgrave's abilities was to see the disconnect between what he forced his victims to do and their emotional state--particularly how they were able express those emotions through expressions and gestures that weren't explicitly dictated by Kilgrave. However, when he does give an explicit order ("Smile, Jessica"), you do at least outwardly act with whatever emotion he wants (or no emotion at all.)

With respect to more traditional brainwashing by Hydra ("compliance will be rewarded"), the MCU often has the victims act with some weird flat affect, except when they're forced to conspicuously display emotion in such a weird, out-of-character way that I find it increasingly hard to believe that no other characters notice anything wrong until it's too late. Even Bucky pretty much acted like a stereotypical emotionless assassin for a good chunk of Winter Soldier (and probably 100% of the trailers.)

In Captain Marvel's case, however, I think it's less about brainwashing and more the fact that she's completely culturally assimilated into a Proud Warrior Race. Think the Jaffa from the Stargate universe, or how Worf thought Klingons were supposed to be in Star Trek--pretty much stoic when it comes to displaying any emotion other than anger.



This isn’t about “the pretty girl should smile more”. It’s about why she looks so absolutely apathetic and uninterested in her own movie.

Are we still talking about whatever social media thing Lord keeps alluding to, or are we talking the actress's appearance in character?


OK, two trailers in and I can say that they have completely failed to engage my enthusiasm. They are trying way too hard for cool, tough deadpan snarker and ended up with smug, self-impressed, and condescending.

What makes you think that was unintentional?

All I really got from the trailer is that the MCU version of Carol has forgotten her human life and basically considers herself Kree. One thing that has remained pretty much unchanged from the comic universe to the MCU is that, as a society, the Kree are comparatively benevolent, but also self-righteous and pretty much convinced of their own superiority. In fact, the main thing that distinguishes Kree villains--such as Ronan the Accuser or random Kree space crime boss #25--from the generally good ones is that the villains don't include restraint and moral superiority as part of their superior self-image.

Considering just how hard they're telegraphing the whole "reclaiming her memories/humanity" cliche, my first guess would have been that they're deliberately having her act like an outsider looking down on humanity--in other words, pretty much the way most Kree, Asgard, or other alien characters regarded our backwater planet at first.

[Erys]

OK, two trailers in and I can say that they have completely failed to engage my enthusiasm. They are trying way too hard for cool, tough deadpan snarker and ended up with smug, self-impressed, and condescending.

Watch the third one I posted.

It is better.

In fact, based on the evolution of the trailers I think Disney is pulling a smooth marketing stunt. The only bad publicity is no publicity. The first trailer teases the movie but left people feeling the lead was emotionally hollow- bitching ensues. Bitching = buzz. People are talking about the movie.

This trailer shows much more emotion in the character, turning that (imho, weak) complaint on its head. Seriously, check it out. You will see what I mean.

(Also, the little jab at Agents of SHIELD was gold. GOLD!!)

[Xyril]

It surprises me that you know her social media behavior but not her acting credentials or, apparently, her name. Does that seem strange to anyone else?

Very strange to me. In fact, I find it rather... perplexing that Lord keeps vaguely alluding to her social media antics, but conspicuously avoids citing specific examples of that behavior (fairly easy considering how social media generally works) or even describing what it is--and what bothers him about it--with any specificity.

It makes me suspect that the sole source of his information is the trailers themselves and some random article or comment where some other dude vaguely alluded to her "social media behavior." For the record, I think it's completely legitimate to know absolutely nothing about a movie or its cast and to react solely to a trailer--the whole point of a trailer is to get some positive response from folks who previously had zero interest in finding out more about a movie or it's cast. Still, I think it's a tad bit intellectually hinky to bolster your arguments by falsely implying you've done some research or went out and got some information that you, in fact, have not.

[Xyril]

(Also, the little jab at Agents of SHIELD was gold. GOLD!!)

I'm surprised Marvel Studios acknowledged Marvel TV at all, even in a meta way.

[Dr.Samurai]

Your assertion isn't really true in real life. (Well, I mean it is arguably true, but kind of judgey to call those folks who don't react the way most people do "not normal.)
Interesting quote here. You get to tell me I'm wrong, then hedge, then judge me just in case anyways lol. Clever :smallamused:.

But no, it is true in real life and it's not judgemental to say that. If you want, replace "like a normal person" with "like the majority of people" and then we can hopefully move on.

In Marvel, and genre fiction in general, on the other hand, your assertion is pretty frequently false.
No it's not. Bucky is brainwashed and mind-scrambled and can still register confusion and hesitation and determination and pain and fear. Logan has amnesia and fractured memories and can still register rage, pain, sadness, desperation, passion.

The comment I replied to was giving an excuse as to why we are presented with a blank slate character devoid of personality in the trailer. Unless she is being mind-controlled all the time, or the only clips we see her in her mind is under control (neither of which is true), the excuse doesn't work and she should be acting like everyone else.

Admittedly, she very likely is in the rest of the movie, but they chose the clips they did for the trailer, which makes it not a very exciting or compelling trailer for me. If we look back to Iron Man, or Captain America: First Avenger, you get a sense of the character and their personality, let alone the plot. Or look at Wonder Woman as well.

This trailer doesn't give a sense of who Captain Marvel is (her personality) or really what is going on beyond "she's recovering her memories". I don't know anything about Kree culture or anything about Captain Marvel beyond Rogue, so I'm not drawing on anything to help me interpret this trailer. It's just a lousy trailer. Doesn't mean the movie won't be good (I did not like the Guardians of the Galaxy trailer at all and wasn't hyped for the movie, and then was pleasantly surprised).

Are we still talking about whatever social media thing Lord keeps alluding to, or are we talking the actress's appearance in character?
I don't know about the social media thing. I'm talking about how she looks in the trailer.

[Xyril]

Interesting quote here. You get to tell me I'm wrong, then hedge, then judge me just in case anyways lol.


And now you get to score a rhetorical point, too. And I'm fine with "the majority of Americans" and maybe lumping a lot of other cultures into that mix.



No it's not. Bucky is brainwashed and mind-scrambled and can still register confusion and hesitation and determination and pain and fear.


And as I have specifically cited as an example, in the trailers and for the early part of the movie, pretty much played the emotionless assassin thing straight. Confronting Steve in person started to break down that conditioning, and as you say, the rest of the movie involved a lot of mixed emotions as the "real" Bucky struggled against the conditioning.



Logan has amnesia and fractured memories and can still register rage, pain, sadness, desperation, passion.


Yes, but he's not mind-controlled.



The comment I replied to was giving an excuse as to why we are presented with a blank slate character devoid of personality in the trailer. Unless she is being mind-controlled all the time, or the only clips we see her in her mind is under control (neither of which is true), the excuse doesn't work and she should be acting like everyone else.


Just curious, what's the basis of those last two assertions? I've only seen the trailers, and so my interpretation has mostly been inferences from the trailers and existing MCU and speculation based on what they might do to adapt from the comics. Was there some official comment that I should go read to understand the trailer's properly?

Unless there's something that directly contradicts me, my initial reaction will probably as I have already stated clearly: She's acting culturally Kree. I don't know if it's, strictly speaking, "mind control," whether her memory was erased for nefarious purposes or because the Kree doctors sincerely thought it would be the best for her moving forward, but the end result seems pretty clear: She doesn't remember her time on Earth at all, and so her only formative experiences are living among the Kree (or perhaps, more narrowly, living as part of a specific Kree military unit.) So it wouldn't bother me particularly if she weren't acting like "a normal human," because her situation is far from typical, and as I have already stated, her behavior isn't all that different from the depiction of a lot of MCU aliens. Also, while her demeanor in the trailers might be outside of "normal" for humans, it actually isn't the range of (frequently) observed human behavior among some subsets, for example folks who have suffered a major trauma.



This trailer doesn't give a sense of who Captain Marvel is (her personality) or really what is going on beyond "she's recovering her memories". I don't know anything about Kree culture or anything about Captain Marvel beyond Rogue, so I'm not drawing on anything to help me interpret this trailer.


I'm not defending the first trailer as particularly great. I just question the validity of folks jumping on the Darth Ultron train of "feminists put girl who can't act into this movie because feminism" based solely on this trailer. Pretty much anyone who's been around the block with superhero/fantasy/sci-fi should have had at least some contact with the Proud Warrior Race/Stoic Logical Race/Superior Outsider Race cliches--all of which are, at their laziest, characterized by emotional reactions that don't come off as typical for humans. (In fact, old continuity Star Trek was pretty much required to have one or two characters like that every series, though Trek at its best would find a way for those characterizes to gradually convey personality through their facade.) For the record, my first reaction is that Brie Larson is horribly miscast to play Captain Marvel as characterized in the comics, but she seems like a capable actress in what I've seen. (She's pretty much the only polish on the turd that was Room)

[The Jack]

Trailer was awful. Ultra generic stuff.

Obviously I'm not far right, but I think -bad feminism- does a lot to incite them, and the trailer reeked of -bad feminism-


But I think my bigger problem was her voice.
I'm an accent snob you see.
I didn't like her accent. It sounds unintelligent. I can't take her very seriously.

[Leewei]

The latest spoiler puts a big twist on Danvers' unsmiling, robotic vibe. She certainly isn't a robot - but she does appear on Earth, beat up a mugger(?) and take his shirt and jacket, much like the Terminator. It looks like the movie will be packed with 80s and 90s scif-fi blockbuster call-outs.

[HMS Invincible]

The latest spoiler puts a big twist on Danvers' unsmiling, robotic vibe. She certainly isn't a robot - but she does appear on Earth, beat up a mugger(?) and take his shirt and jacket, much like the Terminator. It looks like the movie will be packed with 80s and 90s scif-fi blockbuster call-outs.

I had to rewatch the 3 trailers before I realized you pulled this out of your butt. There's no mugging scene.

[Olinser]

The 3rd trailer is DEFINITELY better than the other 2, but that still makes me skeptical of the movie as a whole - remember that trailers are supposed to showcase the best parts of a movie/make people want to see the movie, and the first 2 did neither. They get points for adjusting and making a better trailer, but that sequence of events always makes me very nervous that the first trailers are more representative of the movie. But at least she's showing some kind of emotion in this trailer.

I don't think it's going to be a disaster, but this is definitely not going to be the mega-success that they seem to want it to be, which is bad since they seemed to want Captain Marvel to be the new 'lead' of the universe after Infinity War. I just don't see it happening.

Past that, my big negatives are 2 things (1 of them I freely acknowledge that almost nobody is going to care about).

1) The final outfit at the end of the trailer when she's in space looks RIDICULOUS. The visuals are good, the CGI is good, and the act of running around zapping spaceships is good, but that headpiece is like.... WTF I can't focus on anything else. I'm sorry it looks ABSURD. And yes, a lot of the costumes are ridiculous in many movies and in many comics. It could have been worse, they could have hauled out the ridiculous Warbird shoulder pauldrons, but this is one that should have never made it into the movie.

2) The stupid rope climbing scene at the Naval Academy and acting like this is some kind of big defining moment in the 'fall down, stand up, stare seriously at camera' montage. Yes, I understand 99.9% of people don't know what I'm talking about, but I went there, and ****ing hell how many times is Hollywood going to fetishize things like the rope climb that have literally zero relevance to your actual performance/graduation.

[JadedDM]

I don't think it's going to be a disaster, but this is definitely not going to be the mega-success that they seem to want it to be, which is bad since they seemed to want Captain Marvel to be the new 'lead' of the universe after Infinity War. I just don't see it happening.

Captain Marvel Soars Into Fandango's Top 3 MCU First Day Pre-Sellers (https://www.cbr.com/captain-marvel-fandango-top-mcu-pre-sellers/)

[The Glyphstone]

Captain Marvel Soars Into Fandango's Top 3 MCU First Day Pre-Sellers (https://www.cbr.com/captain-marvel-fandango-top-mcu-pre-sellers/)

That's actually more concerning, because it shows how high expectations and enthusiasm are for the movie. Now it just needs to deliver on all that hope, which the trailers so far don't seem to be pointing in favor of. They need a Black Panther, and if they only get a Wonder Woman* it could hurt the prospect for future female-lead superheroes.

*WW was fantastic relative to the DCEU, but Marvel's got far higher brand reputation to live up to.

[Legato Endless]

That's actually more concerning, because it shows how high expectations and enthusiasm are for the movie. Now it just needs to deliver on all that hope, which the trailers so far don't seem to be pointing in favor of. They need a Black Panther, and if they only get a Wonder Woman* it could hurt the prospect for future female-lead superheroes.

*WW was fantastic relative to the DCEU, but Marvel's got far higher brand reputation to live up to.

I don't think this is true. The MCU, juggernaut that is, still doesn't define the larger trend sets. Wonderwoman was good enough. Got decent reviews, made its money, garnered enthusiasm for the character. That's...really all a movie needs in this context. It 'proved' to the studios that female superheroes can work. We've already gotten other adjacent genre successes like Hunger games to bolster the general idea.

Considering the demand for more women at the spotlight, and the increasing international catering that Hollywood will have to keep adjusting to, we're getting more protagonist heroines in the future even if this movie got canceled in some nigh impossible hypothetical.

Spider-Gwen of Into the Spider-verse had a spinoff greenlit last November. Captain Marvel being a decent but not stellar film isn't gonna stop that trend.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Finally decided to watch the trailers since I heard two more came out, was a good time to see what all the fuss (positive and negative) is about considering there seemed to be a lot of fuss.

As it turns out...it looks Marvel Cinematic Universe-level okay. I still don't have the best idea who Captain Marvel is while Fury and Jude Law's character steal a fair bit of the limelight but that's not a terrible thing. Black Panther took a back seat in his own movie spotlight wise and it was still an alright movie.

My bigger concerns are still fairly minor and largely personal. First is that I don't like the flaming mohawk. The very small amount of research of done on Captain Marvel before this movie was announced and that look was my least favorite of Captain Marvel's but eh. No biggie on that one.

A bigger one is that Marvel doesn't strike me as the most likeable of characters. This doesn't matter so much if they're charming, snarky, or something I'd enjoy watching otherwise but I don't see any signs of that in the trailers but I also get a distinct 'pre-character arc' vibe so again, a minor complaint.

Third is kind of what others have touched on in that they seem so focused on the 'look, its female superhero lead, just like you wanted!' aspect of marketing that is...a bit cringe-y honestly rather than making a better trailer.

All in all, seems like a solid 'watch at home' Marvel movie rather than seeing it in theaters.

[Dilvish]

Watch the third one I posted.

It is better.

In fact, based on the evolution of the trailers I think Disney is pulling a smooth marketing stunt. The only bad publicity is no publicity. The first trailer teases the movie but left people feeling the lead was emotionally hollow- bitching ensues. Bitching = buzz. People are talking about the movie.

This trailer shows much more emotion in the character, turning that (imho, weak) complaint on its head. Seriously, check it out. You will see what I mean.

(Also, the little jab at Agents of SHIELD was gold. GOLD!!)

The jab at Agents of SHIELD, it was the comment about the SHIELD logo on clothing? Making sure I caught the right thing.

[The Glyphstone]

I finally got a look at a still from the latest trailer, and dang does that crested helmet look dumb. I hope she doesn't spend much of the movie with it on.

[The Jack]

Genuinely looks direct to video.

[Pippa the Pixie]

That's actually more concerning, because it shows how high expectations and enthusiasm are for the movie. Now it just needs to deliver on all that hope, which the trailers so far don't seem to be pointing in favor of. They need a Black Panther, and if they only get a Wonder Woman* it could hurt the prospect for future female-lead superheroes.

I was sick of the hype like a year ago. Why can't they just make good super hero movies? Captain Marvel is a girl...ok, we know...now can you make a good movie?



Third is kind of what others have touched on in that they seem so focused on the 'look, its female superhero lead, just like you wanted!' aspect of marketing that is...a bit cringe-y honestly rather than making a better trailer.


I'm afraid of the ''look a girl hero you must like her" thing. This is worse as the movie likely got tons of re writes and re shoots and changes to make it a ''perfect girl movie", but not a good movie.

[Tvtyrant]

Didn't The Hunger Games and Wonderwoman already happen? Formula seems sound:

Idiot guy in love with girl out of his league, she is disinterested but willing to be friends, they don't get together. She does cool stuff, movie ends. The only reason Antman and the Wasp doesn't count is it was from his viewpoint.

[The Glyphstone]

I was sick of the hype like a year ago. Why can't they just make good super hero movies? Captain Marvel is a girl...ok, we know...now can you make a good movie?
.

That's why Black Panther was so successful - it was an excellent movie that also had an almost entirely black cast. I want CM to be an excellent movie that also has a female solo lead, and I'm not sure if they will manage to deliver.

[Erys]

I get that haters are going to hate, but sheesh...

Show a little integrity and judge the movie on its own merits when it is released, and not what your own internal bias assumes based on a few trailers.

Disney feminized Star Wars, I get it. But the MCU is a separate department with different people at the helm. And so far even the bad MCU movies have been pretty solid and good.

[Legato Endless]

I get that haters are going to hate, but sheesh...

Show a little integrity and judge the movie on its own merits when it is released, and not what your own internal bias assumes based on a few trailers.

And crash the speculation economy that drives pop culture online?!


Didn't The Hunger Games and Wonderwoman already happen?

You'd think so but was just a best selling young adult series and the world's most famous Amazon. The MCU is a whole herd of sacred cows.


I was sick of the hype like a year ago. Why can't they just make good super hero movies? Captain Marvel is a girl...ok, we know...now can you make a good movie?

Marvel Studios has popped out 20 of these over the last decade. If you don't think they're trying to make a good movie I don't think anything would be persuasive. They might not be good to you (Fair) but they've spent a lot of time passionately growing their dynasty. Pass or fail, thinking this movie is some anomaly where they suddenly threw all of that away is a leap of speculation.


I'm afraid of the ''look a girl hero you must like her" thing. This is worse as the movie likely got tons of re writes and re shoots and changes to make it a ''perfect girl movie", but not a good movie

Every Marvel film, almost every superhero film, is actively trying to manipulate you into liking the protagonist every minute they're on screen. Movies are manipulative by their very nature as a medium.

If you're afraid of an agenda besides having a good time, this might not be the series for you. Black Panther was downright preachy about this. Ragnorok was subtler, but that doesn't change the film had a whole to say about colonialism and revolution. Avengers 3 and Civil War had messages, the forum has pumped out millions of words about how they were handled. This isn't new.

[Callos_DeTerran]

That's why Black Panther was so successful - it was an excellent movie that also had an almost entirely black cast. I want CM to be an excellent movie that also has a female solo lead, and I'm not sure if they will manage to deliver.

As someone who was ultimately disappointed by Black Panther (it was good but not great...undeserving of the hype), I'm hoping Captain Marvel does better.

[Aotrs Commander]

*watches second and third trailer*

See! See! That was fine!

Looks hilarious even!

Seriously, Marvel, I think you guys need to either follow Sony's example with the new Spider-Man trailer or make your first trailer, then chuck it away and lead with the second one. That was MUCH better than the teaser trailer. Now I'm actually really hyped to see this like I should have been after the first trailer. (Hell you'd have probably avoided a whole lot of the flack, you muppets, if you'd lead with a teaser that was pants.)

You numpties, Marvel.



(Top comment on the video I watched was someone saying exactly this.)

[Tyndmyr]

If you're afraid of an agenda besides having a good time, this might not be the series for you. Black Panther was downright preachy about this. Ragnorok was subtler, but that doesn't change the film had a whole to say about colonialism and revolution.

Most importantly, to remember to print enough pamphlets.

[Leewei]

Didn't The Hunger Games and Wonderwoman already happen? Formula seems sound:

Idiot guy in love with girl out of his league, she is disinterested but willing to be friends, they don't get together. She does cool stuff, movie ends. The only reason Antman and the Wasp doesn't count is it was from his viewpoint.Hmm. My take away from Antman and Wasp was very different. The movie had a bunch of father-daughter theme in it all over the place. The fathers were even shown in a fairly positive light. The relationships redeemed Hank Pym, Scott Lang, and even Ava. Love interests took the back seat to this in a big way.

[The Jack]

Hmm. My take away from Antman and Wasp was very different. The movie had a bunch of father-daughter theme in it all over the place. The fathers were even shown in a fairly positive light. The relationships redeemed Hank Pym, Scott Lang, and even Ava. Love interests took the back seat to this in a big way.

What you say has merit, but I don't think it overrides the core complaint. Whilst fatherhood is certainly depicted in a positive light, it doesn't change that Antman was a goofball in scenes where he shouldn't have been, and that the wasp was always portrayed as supremely competent.

There's a time and place to be a goofball, indeed I feel Paul Rud's roll as a parent was improved by goofballing, but I feel his character was damaged by incompetence in scenes where he shouldn't have goofballed.

In contrast, whilst the supreme competence of the wasp isn't entirely a problem, I feel as if her character would've been improved had they given her some goofball scenes (and him less inappropriate ones). It does feel like a bad case of double standards as you can't help but compare two people that are counterparts. Themes of fatherhood take a backseat when you've got such an elephant in the room.

Both characters should have been given goofball scenes where appropriate and competence where appropriate, but that very obviously wasn't the case.

[GloatingSwine]

What you say has merit, but I don't think it overrides the core complaint. Whilst fatherhood is certainly depicted in a positive light, it doesn't change that Antman was a goofball in scenes where he shouldn't have been, and that the wasp was always portrayed as supremely competent. .

That's there to reinforce the fact that Hank was making an irrational decision to keep Hope out of the suit in favour of Scott. Because he's made the objectively worse choice due to being overprotective.

[Leewei]

Scott's greatest triumph (as well as the best scenes in the movie) showcased his relationship with Cassie.

The time he spent in play with her, the way she loved and looked up to him, and especially the cut to her expression when he was on the news in giant size all were integral to the movie.

I didn't get the impression at all that this facet of him was being shown as a flaw. His facility for play and skullduggery never changed. What did change was his acceptance of these traits and willingness to weaponize them to help Hank and Hope.

Note that Ava was a brutal combatant, in every respect at least equal to Hope, but it was Scott's scam that took her down.

Also note that Hope's disconnection to her own father, as well as her needing to lighten up were shown to be flaws. She was a skilled combatant, but not capable of improvising the way that Scott did.

[Tvtyrant]

Hmm. My take away from Antman and Wasp was very different. The movie had a bunch of father-daughter theme in it all over the place. The fathers were even shown in a fairly positive light. The relationships redeemed Hank Pym, Scott Lang, and even Ava. Love interests took the back seat to this in a big way.

There being a formula for how to make action movies around women doesn't make those the point of the movie. Wonder Woman's point wasn't "superior person shows up loser" it was that life is much more complicated then we want to admit and evil is endemic to the human condition.

Likewise the Hunger Games was about creating choices under oppressive conditions, not Katnis being ultra competent next to her hot baker side kick.

Formulas aren't bad. The hero teamup is a formula, gangster movies follow a formula, I'm just saying there is now a formula for action films about women.

[danzibr]

I don’t know anything about her. And based on the trailer, she looks pretty meh.

[HMS Invincible]

I don’t know anything about her. And based on the trailer, she looks pretty meh.
Are you more of a black widow/tomb raider kinda guy?

The later trailers are better than the 90 emo first one. Which tells us nothing since trailers usually lie. I'm thinking of the tonal shift between thor ragnorak trailer and the film.

[danzibr]

Are you more of a black widow/tomb raider kinda guy?

The later trailers are better than the 90 emo first one. Which tells us nothing since trailers usually lie. I'm thinking of the tonal shift between thor ragnorak trailer and the film.
Ya know... nope, neither of them. At least from what I’ve seen (which isn’t much).

I like Wonder Woman though. Dunno the difference. I’ll have to contemplate this.

[Legato Endless]

In contrast, whilst the supreme competence of the wasp isn't entirely a problem, I feel as if her character would've been improved had they given her some goofball scenes (and him less inappropriate ones). It does feel like a bad case of double standards as you can't help but compare two people that are counterparts. Themes of fatherhood take a backseat when you've got such an elephant in the room.

Both characters should have been given goofball scenes where appropriate and competence where appropriate, but that very obviously wasn't the case.

I prefer cast stratification. Making everyone a goof homogenizes the characters, which is usually a sign of bad writing when it isn't a core thematic trait. At a minimum it's repetitive.

It's true that with female characters getting more prominent roles, they are hunkering into new different contemporary territory. Some badass women characters do seem to hearken back to an old formerly male popularized archetype, the cooly confident usually in control hero who may lose, but is never humiliated by the narrative.

I don't see this as a problem however, as I like that archetype. Especially since humiliation is the new lazy way to show your larger than life protagonist is 'grounded.' There are other ways we humanize people.

It's only a problem when the character isn't flawed. But Wasp isn't close to the most competent Marvel hero. Wasp is a far better combatant than Antman, but she shares her brilliant father's failure at all things interpersonal. If you had a problem which involved dealing with someone you couldn't punch out or technobabble, you'd never send the Wasp to deal with it. Scott, for all the jokes at his expense, is emotionally much better grounded than any of the Pyms except Janet.

[The Jack]

I feel love interests should be similar to eachother, and the wasp doesn't need to goof in the same way.
It's less that she doesn't goof and more that he goofs when he really, really shouldn't. But because she doesn't goof at all, not even a little, and he goofs so often when he shouldn't...

Other thoughts: Why exactly is she so good at combat? She's got that inhumanly-good fighter quality to her. I can't remember the movie that well, but I know my fight choreography and she struck me as too-good for the daughter of the scientist, even if he was once a soldier. That's some black-ops 12th dan mutant **** right there (or I could be remembering wrong) What kind of life did she live to get near that skill? Did her father raise her like a knight or something?

[Tron Troll]

I don’t know anything about her. And based on the trailer, she looks pretty meh.

The movie feels like a flop.

What the should do: Make a good, likeable female simple superhero (Thor, Ant-Man or Captain America)

What it seems we will get: A mean, bad, angry unlikeable complex female anti-hero/villain with ''memory" problems

[Olinser]

The movie feels like a flop.

What the should do: Make a good, likeable female simple superhero (Thor, Ant-Man or Captain America)

What it seems we will get: A mean, bad, angry unlikeable complex female anti-hero/villain with ''memory" problems

It's definitely not going to be the mega-success the shills were claiming it was going to be (pending the foreign box office of course. Venom was a massive runaway success in the foreign office despite a mediocre US take, anything can happen). Projections have dropped from 160-200 million opening to 80-100 million opening. NOT a good sign.

I mean its going to make money. It's almost impossible for a Marvel movie to lose money at this time unless its a DISASTER. But it does not bode well for the post-Infinity War Marvel world, since they were clearly trying to make her the next Captain America.

Purely from the roster, assuming Thor, Hulk, Iron Man and Captain America will be gone, I actually think if Captain Marvel fails in the MCU, then it means Black Panther is going to get made the Avengers leader.

Spider-Man is right out. Nobody's going to follow a kid. Scarlet Witch and Ant-Man have have never been portrayed as any kind of leader, War Machine would be a real possibility but he's always been a secondary character. While Vision has the whole Incorruptible Pure Pureness thing going on, he is also simply not a leader. Guardians of the Galaxy aren't Avengers and none of them would follow them anyway.

So that basically leaves Dr Strange and Black Panther. Purely from a meta perspective, they can't count on having a big name actor like Benedict Cucumbersandwich on lock for as long as they want to do the next phase, so that means ole Panther is going to have to take the helm of the Avengers.

[Dienekes]

It's definitely not going to be the mega-success the shills were claiming it was going to be (pending the foreign box office of course. Venom was a massive runaway success in the foreign office despite a mediocre US take, anything can happen). Projections have dropped from 160-200 million opening to 80-100 million opening. NOT a good sign.

I mean its going to make money. It's almost impossible for a Marvel movie to lose money at this time unless its a DISASTER. But it does not bode well for the post-Infinity War Marvel world, since they were clearly trying to make her the next Captain America.

Purely from the roster, assuming Thor, Hulk, Iron Man and Captain America will be gone, I actually think if Captain Marvel fails in the MCU, then it means Black Panther is going to get made the Avengers leader.

Spider-Man is right out. Nobody's going to follow a kid. Scarlet Witch and Ant-Man have have never been portrayed as any kind of leader, War Machine would be a real possibility but he's always been a secondary character. While Vision has the whole Incorruptible Pure Pureness thing going on, he is also simply not a leader. Guardians of the Galaxy aren't Avengers and none of them would follow them anyway.

So that basically leaves Dr Strange and Black Panther. Purely from a meta perspective, they can't count on having a big name actor like Benedict Cucumbersandwich on lock for as long as they want to do the next phase, so that means ole Panther is going to have to take the helm of the Avengers.

The actor who plays Bucky has a much longer contract than the one with the actor that plays Steve. I’m thinking he might take up the mantle as he did in the comics for awhile.

Though, gonna be honest, Cap only got about 3 scenes being the actual leader in Avengers 1 and 2 (I got the feeling Whedon wasn’t interested in Cap too much). So the real position of head to take is actually Stark. And honestly, the antisocial face of a series has worked before. Wolverine comes to mind.

[Darth Ultron]

I mean its going to make money. It's almost impossible for a Marvel movie to lose money at this time unless its a DISASTER.

Sure, it will make some money.....but nowhere near the hype. It will make ''DC hero" money :) And it will set the bad taste for a female super hero movie....even worse as the movie will simply try to hard.



Purely from the roster, assuming Thor, Hulk, Iron Man and Captain America will be gone, I actually think if Captain Marvel fails in the MCU, then it means Black Panther is going to get made the Avengers leader.


Well...there is Hawkeye or Falcon(even more so if Falcon becomes Captain America).

And they could even bring in a new leader character, maybe even a female one.

[oudeis]

The movie was screened for the press on the 19th and the reactions have been wildly enthusiastic. Even from male critics. :wink:

[Aotrs Commander]

So that basically leaves Dr Strange and Black Panther. Purely from a meta perspective, they can't count on having a big name actor like Benedict Cucumbersandwich on lock for as long as they want to do the next phase, so that means ole Panther is going to have to take the helm of the Avengers.

I mean, assuming that Carol "fails" (and I am not, personally, having the seen the not-crap trailer, willing to make that assuption)... Why would that be bad? I mean, dude's literally a King, it's not like he lacks the skills.

(Hell, arguement there to be made he's a better leader candidate than Cap is right now, to be honest.)




The movie was screened for the press on the 19th and the reactions have been wildly enthusiastic. Even from male critics. :wink:

Goodo.

Since the later, y'know, not-a-load-of-pants trailers, I'm really quite keen to see this now, and especially for it to be really good.

As close to a live-action Earth's Mightiest Heroes!Captain Marvel - Voiced By Jennifer Hale (the only one that I actively liked, Carol's other protrails being kinda blah) as I'm going to get would suit me fine, 'cos she was great there.



(Again, I think Marvel need to make their first teaser trailers, immediately throw them away and make their second ones, since their first trailers are often a complete load of monkey-droppings; Cap Marvel is hardly the first offender here, but just the most unfortunate one, being part of the current backlash from certain quarters. I mean that trailer was that unflattering to the movie it did the exact opposite of what it intended.)

[HMS Invincible]

The movie feels like a flop.

What the should do: Make a good, likeable female simple superhero (Thor, Ant-Man or Captain America)

What it seems we will get: A mean, bad, angry unlikeable complex female anti-hero/villain with ''memory" problems
None of the characters you mentioned were always likeable, good, simple or female. For example Thor was awful in the beginning. Didn't the actor think about quitting early on? The hero was a Shakespearean arrogant jerk who liked partying and picking fights.

[Zalabim]

The hero[Thor] was a Shakespearean arrogant jerk who liked partying and picking fights.
So you're saying he hasn't changed much.

[Legato Endless]

(Hell, arguement there to be made he's a better leader candidate than Cap is right now, to be honest.)

I'd easily choose to follow MCU T'Challa versus MCU Steve.


Sure, it will make some money.....but nowhere near the hype. It will make ''DC hero" money :) And it will set the bad taste for a female super hero movie....even worse as the movie will simply try to hard.

Captain Marvel bombing means March turns into a bad month for the cinema. Wonderwoman, Spider-Gwen, Birds of Prey are all still coming in the future. "The bell can't be unrung." There's no one point of failure to alter this.



Other thoughts: Why exactly is she so good at combat? She's got that inhumanly-good fighter quality to her. I can't remember the movie that well, but I know my fight choreography and she struck me as too-good for the daughter of the scientist, even if he was once a soldier. That's some black-ops 12th dan mutant **** right there (or I could be remembering wrong) What kind of life did she live to get near that skill? Did her father raise her like a knight or something?

The opposite. She's the rich kid left unattended by her parents that got to do whatever she wanted after getting tossed into boarding school by Hank. Privileged upbringing allowing her to pursue martial arts from a young age.

[Tron Troll]

Captain Marvel bombing means March turns into a bad month for the cinema. Wonderwoman, Spider-Gwen, Birds of Prey are all still coming in the future. "The bell can't be unrung." There's no one point of failure to alter this.


Oh...but the bell can ring in an old, lonely Cineplex at the end of a long dusty road. Where the protector is tilted at an angle on a wooden table, and the concession stand has New Coke, Crystal Pepsi and Frutopia.

And Captain Marvel will go on the shelf with SuperGirl(1984) and My Super Ex Girlfriend.

[theNater]

It's definitely not going to be the mega-success the shills were claiming it was going to be (pending the foreign box office of course. Venom was a massive runaway success in the foreign office despite a mediocre US take, anything can happen). Projections have dropped from 160-200 million opening to 80-100 million opening. NOT a good sign.
I looked up some numbers, just to get a sense of perspective. It's just opening weekend data from Box Office Mojo.

Firstly, exactly 14 movies have opened over 160 million dollars. Ever. No superhero has gotten in there with a first film(remember that Black Panther was featured heavily in Captain America: Civil War, which also opened above 160 million). Anyone who was projecting Captain Marvel to hit that was not operating from anything supportable. Having to adjust downwards from that is not a bad sign. It does occur to me that 160-200 million is a very reasonable worldwide opening weekend; is it possible someone's taking an earlier worldwide projection and a more recent domestic projection and misreading it as a downward adjustment?

Second, 80-100 million is perfectly respectable. Character introduction films range from Ant-Man's 57 million to Iron Man's 98 million. Every Marvel movie that has broken 100 million has been a sequel, a team-up, or starred a character who appeared in CA:CW(Spider-Man: Homecoming made 117 million). In fact, half of intros have been below 80 million. Also note that Guardians of the Galaxy had an opening of 94 million, so a show can start from that range and still be a runaway hit.


So that basically leaves Dr Strange and Black Panther. Purely from a meta perspective, they can't count on having a big name actor like Benedict Cucumbersandwich on lock for as long as they want to do the next phase, so that means ole Panther is going to have to take the helm of the Avengers.
I find it interesting that you think Captain Marvel needs to break a 100 million opening weekend to be a reasonable choice for the new leader of the Avengers, but Dr. Strange is removed for actor availability rather than financial success. Dr. Strange only had an 85 million opening weekend, but as near as I can tell, is widely considered successful and popular. Why can't it be the same for Captain Marvel?

Heck, Captain America came in below both Thor and Iron Man in terms of first movie opening weekend. But he was just fine as leader of the Avengers.

[Olinser]

I looked up some numbers, just to get a sense of perspective. It's just opening weekend data from Box Office Mojo.

Firstly, exactly 14 movies have opened over 160 million dollars. Ever. No superhero has gotten in there with a first film(remember that Black Panther was featured heavily in Captain America: Civil War, which also opened above 160 million). Anyone who was projecting Captain Marvel to hit that was not operating from anything supportable. Having to adjust downwards from that is not a bad sign. It does occur to me that 160-200 million is a very reasonable worldwide opening weekend; is it possible someone's taking an earlier worldwide projection and a more recent domestic projection and misreading it as a downward adjustment?

Second, 80-100 million is perfectly respectable. Character introduction films range from Ant-Man's 57 million to Iron Man's 98 million. Every Marvel movie that has broken 100 million has been a sequel, a team-up, or starred a character who appeared in CA:CW(Spider-Man: Homecoming made 117 million). In fact, half of intros have been below 80 million. Also note that Guardians of the Galaxy had an opening of 94 million, so a show can start from that range and still be a runaway hit.


I find it interesting that you think Captain Marvel needs to break a 100 million opening weekend to be a reasonable choice for the new leader of the Avengers, but Dr. Strange is removed for actor availability rather than financial success. Dr. Strange only had an 85 million opening weekend, but as near as I can tell, is widely considered successful and popular. Why can't it be the same for Captain Marvel?

Heck, Captain America came in below both Thor and Iron Man in terms of first movie opening weekend. But he was just fine as leader of the Avengers.

Because PROJECTIONS and the studio and media's own expectations, and the MCU's expectations for the character, as well as staying power. Just a month or two ago there were gushing stories about how this was going to have a huge opening, beat Black Panther, and make a billion dollars. Losing that much enthusiasm before the movie even hits theatres does NOT bode well for its staying power after opening weekend.

Expectations are key. Ant-Man can open at $60 and be considered a success. It's a throwaway character that could be memory holed and never mentioned again if the movie wasn't successful. It's objective was to make a moderate amount of money and see if they could expand the lesser known character Avenger roster. Mission accomplished. Dr Strange at $85 million was a success, because he's a mid-tier character that they also could have tossed out at a moment's notice. Introduce infinity stone, add in another Avenger, mission accomplished. As far as leadership? After just the Dr Strange movie I would agree with you, but he he was extremely popular part of Infinity War and had great chemistry with Spiderman and Iron Man, that would fuel an increased role in the series. But as I said, regardless of popularity they'd be extremely hesitant to expand his role with a big namer like Cabbagepatchkid.

MCU has been pushing Capt Marvel for a while now as the clear headliner of their next phase. Their expectations for this movie is not just 'making money'. They need a huge success, a popular character. They need a Captain America or Iron Man, somebody to be the face of the next phase of the MCU. An $85 million opening with the standard 50% droppoff would finish them low $200 million domestically, would be a disaster for those expectations unless foreign box office is a runaway success (unpredictable, but unlikely given what we know of the plot and flow of the movie - but the China market can be extremely odd, NOBODY was predicting Venom raking in nearly $300 million from China).

That's why I think the movie is going to make money but finish FAR under expectations. Signs are pointing to a mid-$200 million domestic take, and so far foreign reviewers are not particularly enthusiastic about this movie. Failure in general? Of course not, unless foreign returns are a complete dumpster fire it will make money. But failure from perspective of what the MCU clearly wants from the character.

[theNater]

They need a Captain America or Iron Man, somebody to be the face of the next phase of the MCU. An $85 million opening with the standard 50% droppoff would finish them low $200 million domestically, would be a disaster for those expectations...
Captain America: Opening 65 million, Lifetime Domestic 176 million.
Iron Man: Opening 95 million, Lifetime Domestic 318 million.

An 85 million opening and 200 million domestic is absolutely in line with Captain America/Iron Man numbers. And I'd believe that would be a little disappointing to a company coming off of Black Panther and Infinity War. But to be disastrous they'd have to have completely reset their expectations based on the massive outlier that is Black Panther. While that wouldn't be the strangest thing a company has done, it would require throwing out the expectations they had when they decided to try to make Captain Marvel the face of the MCU, because that decision had to be made before Black Panther came out.

[Mechalich]

Because PROJECTIONS and the studio and media's own expectations, and the MCU's expectations for the character, as well as staying power. Just a month or two ago there were gushing stories about how this was going to have a huge opening, beat Black Panther, and make a billion dollars. Losing that much enthusiasm before the movie even hits theatres does NOT bode well for its staying power after opening weekend.

If you google 'Captain Marvel projections' you get a bunch of search results about the projection number rising. If your prior statement is true then it just suggests the projected tracking numbers are bouncing around a lot, which is actually common on the higher-end of projections simply because there's a lot more variability. Honestly, once you hit the $100 million mark the industry really has very little idea what will happen.


MCU has been pushing Capt Marvel for a while now as the clear headliner of their next phase.

Have they really? I think a lot of people have speculated about them going this route, but Marvel has actually been pretty cagey about what's going to home in the post-endgame scenario, despite the fact that they've tacitly acknowledged things like Spider-Man: Far from Home existing.

It makes sense, from a speculative perspective, that Captain Marvel would play a big role going forward, because she's such a powerful character and because Skrulls make a lot of sense as a post-Thanos Big Bad, but the amount of actual information is actually pretty sparse. Additionally, as others have noted, Marvel has the capacity to adjust on the fly. Captain America: The First Avenger was decidedly not the best or most successful Marvel film, but they managed to get a lot out of Cap in Avengers and went forward from there. Captain Marvel will appear in Avengers: Endgame this year as well (it's on IMDB, so that's not any sort of spoiler), and will probably be a rather different character because multiple decades will have passed in-universe between films. So the key aspect, from the overarching MCU perspective, is where Captain Marvel is at the end of her standalone film and then in Endgame, the actual events of the standalone film are much less important.

[Chen]

So the key aspect, from the overarching MCU perspective, is where Captain Marvel is at the end of her standalone film and then in Endgame, the actual events of the standalone film are much less important.

I agree with this. Unless Captain Marvel somehow completely flops it’ll be how she works out in Endgame that makes the difference for the future MCU.

[Legato Endless]

Captain America: Opening 65 million, Lifetime Domestic 176 million.
Iron Man: Opening 95 million, Lifetime Domestic 318 million.

An 85 million opening and 200 million domestic is absolutely in line with Captain America/Iron Man numbers. And I'd believe that would be a little disappointing to a company coming off of Black Panther and Infinity War.

Forbes has a range listing of possible Box Office takes and is fairly optimistic. The people hyping Black Panther style numbers were getting caught in the hype train of previous momentum. Disney isn't going to expect that kind of take, they weren't when it happened with Black Panther to begin with.

Source (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2019/02/08/box-office-captain-marvel-brie-larson-black-panther-jude-law-samuel-l-jackson-avengers-mcu/amp/)

[137beth]

Well, if Star Wars has taught us anything, its that no matter how much money a movie makes, some people will still insist that its a commercial failure and that it is absolute proof that DIsney desperate to hang on to an obviously dead franchise.

[Olinser]

Well, if Star Wars has taught us anything, its that no matter how much money a movie makes, some people will still insist that its a commercial failure and that it is absolute proof that DIsney desperate to hang on to an obviously dead franchise.

People were 100% accurate in saying it was a crap movie and that the next movie was going to be a huge flop. Which is EXACTLY what happened. Hype train means that even bad movies make money, but make it bad enough (and with an equally bad response of the company after the movie), and the hype train ends.

And Disney obviously agrees they were in big trouble or they wouldn't have brought back JJ Abrams instead of sticking to their original director for Episode 9.

[GloatingSwine]

And Disney obviously agrees they were in big trouble or they wouldn't have brought back JJ Abrams instead of sticking to their original director for Episode 9.

Trevorrow was removed from episode 9 when The Book of Henry made it clear that his success with Jurassic World was an accident and not really to do with him. Months before TLJ came out.

And Solo was a massive trainwreck from start to finish which nobody asked for, so was always going to turn people off.

[Dienekes]

Honestly, I think the real test of The Last Jedi will be Episode 9. If that has the returns similar to Solo then TLJ really did “destroy Star Wars.”

‘Cuz I actually thought TLJ is the 4th best Star Wars movie (mind you there have only ever been 3 good Star Wars movies). And I wasn’t planning on seeing Solo.

[Kitten Champion]

Honestly, I think the real test of The Last Jedi will be Episode 9. If that has the returns similar to Solo then TLJ really did “destroy Star Wars.”

‘Cuz I actually thought TLJ is the 4th best Star Wars movie (mind you there have only ever been 3 good Star Wars movies). And I wasn’t planning on seeing Solo.

Eh, "destroying" a brand as commercially successful as Star Wars would probably take more a deliberate indifference by Disney to touching it than one or two bombs -- see various popular Superheroes for evidence of how a brand can keep coming back so long as there's the smell of money.

I'm not really a Star Wars fan personally - despite finding myself arguing about it routinely, because Internet - and I'm pretty indifferent to these side-stories. If Solo's failure quashes their over-saturated schedule then so be it, I guess.

[Aedilred]

People were 100% accurate in saying it was a crap movie and that the next movie was going to be a huge flop. Which is EXACTLY what happened. Hype train means that even bad movies make money, but make it bad enough (and with an equally bad response of the company after the movie), and the hype train ends.


I would like to believe this is true, but it doesn't explain the continued success of the Transformers movies, specifically after Transformers 2.

It also doesn't quite match up with the lived experience of the DCEU, where a terrible and financially disappointing film was followed by a terrible but financially successful film, which was in turn followed by a half-decent and successful film, itself followed by a terrible and financially disappointing film, and then finally (to date) a mediocre but very successful film.

[Mechalich]

I would like to believe this is true, but it doesn't explain the continued success of the Transformers movies, specifically after Transformers 2.

It also doesn't quite match up with the lived experience of the DCEU, where a terrible and financially disappointing film was followed by a terrible but financially successful film, which was in turn followed by a half-decent and successful film, itself followed by a terrible and financially disappointing film, and then finally (to date) a mediocre but very successful film.

The Transformers movies, from 2 onward, suffered a severe case of diminishing returns even as the budgets bloated and only survived because they managed to successfully pander to the Chinese box office. By the time Last Knight came out the margins had gotten awfully thin and they chose to reboot the franchise and produce the next movie, Bumblebee, at a drastically reduced price point, and even then it still only survived by feasting on the Chinese box office (not that feasting on the Chinese box office is a bad plan, as a plethora of recent news stories about ongoing sci-fi smash The Wandering Earth have shown).

The DCEU is less clear, in part because WB spent far too much money making those movies so that even those that man a significant pile of money ended up being at best marginally financially, and they never started from a strong foundation with the current iteration of films, even compared to the first Michael Bay Transformers film. The DC brand has also been more of a mixed bag when dispersed across other media: they continue to produce well regarded animated films and tv and there is an endless supply of DC-based TV populating cable.

[Dienekes]

Eh, "destroying" a brand as commercially successful as Star Wars would probably take more a deliberate indifference by Disney to touching it than one or two bombs -- see various popular Superheroes for evidence of how a brand can keep coming back so long as there's the smell of money.

I'm not really a Star Wars fan personally - despite finding myself arguing about it routinely, because Internet - and I'm pretty indifferent to these side-stories. If Solo's failure quashes their over-saturated schedule then so be it, I guess.

Destroy is hyperbolic, hence the quotation marks. Though, I think the box office of 9 will determine just how detrimental TLJ was. I do agree, some of the arguments about Star Wars can get, trying, to say the least.

[Mechalich]

Destroy is hyperbolic, hence the quotation marks. Though, I think the box office of 9 will determine just how detrimental TLJ was. I do agree, some of the arguments about Star Wars can get, trying, to say the least.

Star Wars is a particular position where it's value as an IP is in great danger of dropping from 'all of the money' to 'valuable contributor in select markets' which is a titanic plunge from the assessment Disney was banking on when they paid Lucas 4 billion for it. And the quality of the films issue is only part of it. Star Wars is an outlier among big IPs, and among sci-fi action franchises generally, in that China doesn't like it very much. The reasons for this are unknown, giant space battles and kung-fu fights with glowing swords seem like the kind of thing that should play well in the Chinese market, but the box office record is well established at this point. The reality is that, even disregarding all other controversies, hot takes, and other issues regarding the performance of the new films, their failure to established Star Wars as a player in the Chinese market, a market that could become the world's largest movie market as early as this year, represents a huge failure by Disney. The four Disney-era Star Wars movies made a collective 252.5 million in China, which is almost 50 million dollars less than the 298 million Aquaman made all by itself.

In the present market, any IP that has dreams of global grandeur needs to appeal simultaneously to the sensibilities of Americans and culturally similar countries and also to China and culturally similar countries. Superheroes, regardless of who is producing them, seem largely able to do this. Results from other types of productions have been considerably more mixed.

[GloatingSwine]

Star Wars is a particular position where it's value as an IP is in great danger of dropping from 'all of the money' to 'valuable contributor in select markets' which is a titanic plunge from the assessment Disney was banking on when they paid Lucas 4 billion for it. And the quality of the films issue is only part of it. Star Wars is an outlier among big IPs, and among sci-fi action franchises generally, in that China doesn't like it very much. The reasons for this are unknown, giant space battles and kung-fu fights with glowing swords seem like the kind of thing that should play well in the Chinese market, but the box office record is well established at this point. The reality is that, even disregarding all other controversies, hot takes, and other issues regarding the performance of the new films, their failure to established Star Wars as a player in the Chinese market, a market that could become the world's largest movie market as early as this year, represents a huge failure by Disney. The four Disney-era Star Wars movies made a collective 252.5 million in China, which is almost 50 million dollars less than the 298 million Aquaman made all by itself.

In the present market, any IP that has dreams of global grandeur needs to appeal simultaneously to the sensibilities of Americans and culturally similar countries and also to China and culturally similar countries. Superheroes, regardless of who is producing them, seem largely able to do this. Results from other types of productions have been considerably more mixed.

It's not actually difficult to understand why Star Wars didn't take off in China.

They didn't get released there at all until 2015.

By which time the originals were too old to catch on as new SF spectacles, and they weren't far enough down the rabbit hole for movies that assume your cultural understanding of those originals (because the primary audience is actually too young to have seen them unless their parents sat them down with the home video version).


(Also, whilst China does like action spectacles, it hasn't been until this year that a sci-fi action spectacle has really gripped them)

[Xyril]

It's not actually difficult to understand why Star Wars didn't take off in China.

They didn't get released there at all until 2015.


Officially. Bootlegs of the original trilogy were available well before then, but not particularly well localized in terms of translation and--as you said--they fell well short of the then-current state of the art for special effects, and were not particularly dazzling in terms of fight choreography in comparison to what had been available in the domestic film market for decades.

Moreover, having a large quasi-middle-class with the means to pay to see a film in a legit theater (in other words, the way distributors actually make their money) is a fairly new thing for China. When the prequel trilogy came out, I don't think there was a strong incentive the market the franchise there, meaning that there wasn't anything generating excitement for the franchise when those movies were new. By the time Disney really started pushing Star Wars in China, it was to sell movies that--while they arguably can stand on their own--derive a substantial part of their appeal for their place in a larger setting established by a half dozen, decades old movies that never really took off in China.

[Tyndmyr]

I don't disagree with any of that, but it does highlight the problem with the current films. If they're only attractive on the basis of existing investment in the universe, then they must attract existing fans or fail in a way that other franchises need not. A new Fast and Furious movie...eh, you don't have to have kept up with all of them. It'll stand alone as a story no better or worse than if you had.

Most of the MCU films have done well in this regard. It's a massive universe, but if you watched literally none of them and randomly showed up to, say, the Spiderman film, you'll do alright. It stands alone decently well. The same will probably be true for Captain Marvel.

This is a good deal less true for, say, Solo. That film was riding pretty hard on nostalgia, and as a standalone film, offers fairly little that's novel, and some stuff that's outright confusing, like, say, the ultimate bad guy. Even the Darth Vader sections of Rogue One, cool as the end sequence was, are less reasonable without the context of having seen the original film. It makes sense that they'd have difficulty attracting people who lack that awareness.

I will note that, on a toy level, Star Was has already suffered this drop. Star Was is perhaps one of the largest merchandising franchises to exist from a toy perspective, and was extremely long-running and usually popular, but now it's...diminished. Still large, but not nearly so exceptional.

It's not just that a bad movie hurt, I think. It's *how* that movie is bad that matters. If it's a decently self contained story with some great action blockbuster shots, it will probably do okay in china even if the story is a bit unoriginal. After all, if they haven't seen the endless similar works, will something even feel derivative? Probably not. So, that's hurting Star Wars a great deal, but it's a mistake the MCU are probably unlikely to make, so they probably have more resilience. A film that doesn't catch in China, like Black Panther, is unlikely to impede enjoyment of other films in the series.

[DuctTapeKatar]

I am uninterested in Captain Marvel for one reason only:

This movie was released before Black Widow and Scarlet Johanson got her own. Black Widow deserves this movie, not Captain Marvel.

Just been part of the MCU since Iron Man 2, has been with Shield since it was a thing. She was just Nick Fury's right-hand woman, probably the best candidate for becoming the new head of Shield, but apparently it's easier to just introduce a new character, no need to give love to a 9-year old fan favorite that everybody dotes upon. Not like anybody cares about one of the most iconic characters in the MCU, a million-dollar franchise that has viewership across the entire planet.

I don't care if the movie is good or not. You don't leave good characters by the wayside then claim that a cardboard cutout is supposed to be better than them just because they are new and shiny. I don't know how they greenlit Captain Marvel before Black Widow, but the only logical explanation I could guess involves an unhealthy amount of cocaine and a dangerously-sized suppository.

[Keltest]

I am uninterested in Captain Marvel for one reason only:

This movie was released before Black Widow and Scarlet Johanson got her own. Black Widow deserves this movie, not Captain Marvel.

Just been part of the MCU since Iron Man 2, has been with Shield since it was a thing. She was just Nick Fury's right-hand woman, probably the best candidate for becoming the new head of Shield, but apparently it's easier to just introduce a new character, no need to give love to a 9-year old fan favorite that everybody dotes upon. Not like anybody cares about one of the most iconic characters in the MCU, a million-dollar franchise that has viewership across the entire planet.

I don't care if the movie is good or not. You don't leave good characters by the wayside then claim that a cardboard cutout is supposed to be better than them just because they are new and shiny. I don't know how they greenlit Captain Marvel before Black Widow, but the only logical explanation I could guess involves an unhealthy amount of cocaine and a dangerously-sized suppository.

I think you've got her confused with Maria Hill here. Hill is Fury's right hand woman and probable successor.

Also, the fact that she's been in the MCU since Iron Man 2 is probably why she hasn't gotten a solo movie before now. The MCU IS her ongoing story, so theres already plenty of room to explore the character.

[JadedDM]

I am uninterested in Captain Marvel for one reason only:

This movie was released before Black Widow and Scarlet Johanson got her own. Black Widow deserves this movie, not Captain Marvel.

Isn't this like refusing to watch any Marvel movie that stars a man because Hawkeye hasn't received his own movie yet?

[Tvtyrant]

Isn't this like refusing to watch any Marvel movie that stars a man because Hawkeye hasn't received his own movie yet?

You make a good point, we should boycott until we get a Hawkeye film.

[Daimbert]

Isn't this like refusing to watch any Marvel movie that stars a man because Hawkeye hasn't received his own movie yet?

It would be more like refusing to watch any Marvel movie that introduces a new male leading character until Hawkeye gets his own movie. So Black Panther would have been a possibility. Although one could also consider that it applies only if there isn't some kind of niche that the new character could fill that Hawkeye couldn't, so Black Panther would get a pass for being a black character (if not also for having been introduced already in Civil War). Captain Marvel seems aimed to fill the exact niche that Black Widow could fill: female leading character.

[GloatingSwine]

Captain Marvel seems aimed to fill the exact niche that Black Widow could fill: female leading character.

Your niches are wrong.

Because you're picking on the least significant elements of the character when determining what stories can be told using them.

The reason you can't tell a story like Black Panther with Hawkeye is nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with the fact that T'Challa is the newly crowned king of an isolationist nation and Hawkeye is a nobody with a bow and arrow.

The reason you can't tell a story like Captain Marvel with Black Widow is because Carol Danvers is a superpowered soldier with connections to an interstellar empire and its enemies, and Natasha Romanova is a non-superpowered spy with connections to a defunct earth nation.

That's kind of the problem with doing a Black Widow solo story. Her background is tied up with the Soviet Union, which hasn't meaningfully existed during the lifetime of most of the expected audience.

So a Black Widow backstory film doesn't work, the foundations crumbled before they even started*, and the current events of the Marvel universe don't really have room for a solo story about a non-superpowered but extremely competent spy.



* And sure, they could use Hydra, but if they're going to do that they can do it with the character they're stealing the story from, Spider-Woman.

[Daimbert]

Your niches are wrong.

No, they aren't. For Black Panther, creating a movie featuring a black superhero and with a primarily black cast was a primary selling point in the media and was a big component in its success. Captain Marvel is being driven as the opportunity to finally produce a movie with a female lead. Hawkeye certainly couldn't fill the former, but Black Widow could definitely fit the latter, and fans have been crying out for her to do so for years now.


Because you're picking on the least significant elements of the character when determining what stories can be told using them.

You seem to be presuming that they decided on the story first and then decided which character could fit it. This is false. They decided what characters they wanted to make a a movie about and then built the story around that. And it seems to me that the determination of what diverse niche they fit into was indeed a significant factor in the decision to go with Black Panther and Captain Marvel, since those characters fit niches that had been asked for by popular media for ages AND many of those involved used that as a selling point for them.


The reason you can't tell a story like Black Panther with Hawkeye is nothing to do with skin colour and everything to do with the fact that T'Challa is the newly crowned king of an isolationist nation and Hawkeye is a nobody with a bow and arrow.

The reason you can't tell a story like Captain Marvel with Black Widow is because Carol Danvers is a superpowered soldier with connections to an interstellar empire and its enemies, and Natasha Romanova is a non-superpowered spy with connections to a defunct earth nation.

You could absolutely make good movies starring Hawkeye and/or Black Widow. You couldn't make the same types of movies, certainly, but remember the original contention was that they wanted to see Black Widow headline a movie before a new female character got one. A spy movie showing how she joined SHIELD would definitely work, as could a solo outing with Hawkeye doing similar things. Heck, a movie with the two of them showing what happened in Budapest seems like a no-brainer.

You can argue -- as you do -- that both of those movies fit into the current narrative of the MCU better than the alternatives would be, but Ant-Man 2 kinda deflates that idea.

But let me be clear: I'm NOT saying that either movie was a narrative failure or a bad decision. Doing what they did might well be the best way to go. But the original posters comments are aimed at something that you didn't address at all and that could have been done. I don't share their appraisal, but JadedDM's reply -- and now yours -- completely misses, to my mind, what their complaint was, which essentially is "How come Black Widow didn't get the first female lead movie? She's put in the time, and Captain Marvel hasn't."

[The Jack]

No, they aren't. For Black Panther, creating a movie featuring a black superhero and with a primarily black cast was a primary selling point in the media and was a big component in its success. Captain Marvel is being driven as the opportunity to finally produce a movie with a female lead. Hawkeye certainly couldn't fill the former, but Black Widow could definitely fit the latter, and fans have been crying out for her to do so for years now.



Black people and women are very, very different things.

Women don't care as much. They get a decent amount representation in hero films in general anyway (relative to who actually watches these films), they just don't often get leads, and they collectively don't care so much for the superhero genre. , only a minority want more representation and campaign for more social rights. As a group they're far more content.

All African americans want more representation and better treatment. They haven't had a leading hero since blade. A lot of films go without black characters or have a Token.

So, in America, you can sell a hero film for having black people because there's a significant audience that craves that. you can't do it for women; you have to make a good film that just happens to have a female protagonist.

[Daimbert]

Black people and women are very, very different things.

Women don't care as much.

Clearly you didn't read reactions to the Wonder Woman movie. Or the discussions over the rebooted Ghostbusters. Or, well, anything inside feminist media criticism for the past decade or so [grin].


They get a decent amount representation in hero films in general anyway (relative to who actually watches these films), they just don't often get leads, and they collectively don't care so much for the superhero genre. , only a minority want more representation and campaign for more social rights. As a group they're far more content.

I'm not sure what your evidence for them being more content is, and again there have been lots of discussions arguing that, no, they DON'T get a decent amount of representation. So the same sorts of people have been demanding it from both groups, it seems to me.


So, in America, you can sell a hero film for having black people because there's a significant audience that craves that. you can't do it for women; you have to make a good film that just happens to have a female protagonist.

You seem to have to make a good film that happens to have a black protagonist as much as you need to do that for women.

[Aotrs Commander]

Black people and women are very, very different things.

...

Okay, I stand gobsmacked at that sentence.

Half of the former are LITERALLY the latter.

[GloatingSwine]

No, they aren't. For Black Panther, creating a movie featuring a black superhero and with a primarily black cast was a primary selling point in the media and was a big component in its success.

However, it was not the primary reason why they chose to make T'Challa the first black hero to lead a movie instead of Falcon or Warmachine.

That was because they had a more compelling solo story to tell with him than with any of the other candidates.

Same with Carol.

There's a better solo story in Captain Marvel as a character, particularly in the current state of the MCU, than there is in Black Widow.

The narrative potential of the character is absolutely a primary consideration when deciding which characters to use for solo projects.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

...

Okay, I stand gobsmacked at that sentence.

Half of the former are LITERALLY the latter.

I'm not sure what it is about female-centered films that brings out this stuff, but I'm at this point approaching it as I would watching a train wreck. Literally from the moment the loud part of the Internet decided to become Kilgraves,
https://66.media.tumblr.com/323c99a85b1376748a162acf59e07ca2/tumblr_p5rw3sHuqG1tvhev2o3_400.gif
watching the reactions to this film has been a microcosms of pretty much everything that is toxic about my hobbies.

Grey Wolf

[Lemmy]

I'm not sure what it is about female-centered films that brings out this stuff, but I'm at this point approaching it as I would watching a train wreck. Literally from the moment the loud part of the Internet decided to become Kilgraves, watching the reactions to this film has been a microcosms of pretty much everything that is toxic about my hobbies.

Grey Wolf
Are you seriously comparing criticism of an actress' acting ability to mind-enslaving and rape?

Who am I kidding... Of course you are. This is the age where any criticism of any woman or female character is seen as sexism.

Of course people dislike Brie's acting because she's female... It surely has nothing to do with her having the expressiveness and charisma of a cardboard box. The proof is how Wonder Woman and Alita were such massive box failures and critically despised...

[Aotrs Commander]

Are you seriously comparing criticism of an actress' acting ability to mind-enslaving and rape?

Who am I kidding... Of course you are. This is the age where any criticism of any woman or female character is seen as sexism.

Of course people dislike Brie's acting because she's female... It surely has nothing to do with her having the expressiveness and charisma of a cardboard box. The proof is how Wonder Woman and Alita were such massive box failures and critically despised...

I'm fairly sure he was talking about the people who were literally complaining that she wasn't smiling in that first trailer. (And to which the legitimate point was raised that, why should she have to?)

(Worth repeating that first teaser trailer was so badly put together, it made me say things I feel a little guilty over.)

The third trailer, which actually shows more of the actual, y'know, character interaction is SO MUCH better - you can actually SEE some of her character beyond the determination. (Speaking of, where a lot of people seem to assume wooden, I more thought controlled professionalism. Since a lot of professional - especially military - folk when doing their actual job DO turn off the extraneous emotions. Hell, I do it myself. Which, y'know, makes sense for her character. Now, do that with, say Deadpool or something and then you'd have a problem.) Personally, after that third trailer I ALREADY like her. And all that it took was, like, two or three lines of dialogue. Which just damns that first teaser trailer so hard.

[Lacuna Caster]

I am uninterested in Captain Marvel for one reason only:

This movie was released before Black Widow and Scarlet Johanson got her own. Black Widow deserves this movie, not Captain Marvel.

That's kind of the problem with doing a Black Widow solo story. Her background is tied up with the Soviet Union, which hasn't meaningfully existed during the lifetime of most of the expected audience.

So a Black Widow backstory film doesn't work, the foundations crumbled before they even started*, and the current events of the Marvel universe don't really have room for a solo story about a non-superpowered but extremely competent spy.

You could absolutely make good movies starring Hawkeye and/or Black Widow. You couldn't make the same types of movies, certainly, but remember the original contention was that they wanted to see Black Widow headline a movie before a new female character got one. A spy movie showing how she joined SHIELD would definitely work, as could a solo outing with Hawkeye doing similar things. Heck, a movie with the two of them showing what happened in Budapest seems like a no-brainer.

You can argue -- as you do -- that both of those movies fit into the current narrative of the MCU better than the alternatives would be, but Ant-Man 2 kinda deflates that idea.

But let me be clear: I'm NOT saying that either movie was a narrative failure or a bad decision. Doing what they did might well be the best way to go. But the original posters comments are aimed at something that you didn't address at all and that could have been done. I don't share their appraisal, but JadedDM's reply -- and now yours -- completely misses, to my mind, what their complaint was, which essentially is "How come Black Widow didn't get the first female lead movie? She's put in the time, and Captain Marvel hasn't."
Yeah, I'm with Daimbert (and possibly DuctTapeKatar) here. I'm pretty sure The Winter Soldier was all about the baggage of this kind of Cold War espionage, and there's no reason, in principle, why you couldn't do a prequel movie where the Soviet Union was still extant. Or just have had her involved in some kind of undercover infiltration role for <reasons> that ties in with some other avenger or other SHIELD business (we had an entire TV series about this). Not every problem calls for solutions involving thunderbolts and plasma beams.

I don't have any active dislike of Captain Marvel, and I don't think anyone should be forming an opinion about the movie before actual reviews and/or seeing it first-hand, but I do agree that Black Widow is long overdue for promotion.


Of course people dislike Brie's acting because she's female... It surely has nothing to do with her having the expressiveness and charisma of a cardboard box. The proof is how Wonder Woman and Alita were such massive box failures and critically despised...
Alita hasn't been doing so hot, sure, but I understand that Wonder Woman did rather well, particularly by DCU standards?

[Lemmy]

Alita hasn't been doing so hot, sure, but I understand that Wonder Woman did rather well, particularly by DCU standards?
You might want to check your Sarcasm Detector... :smallwink:

I don't know how well Alita's been doing... But I'll do my part and see it again! :smallcool:

[Daimbert]

However, it was not the primary reason why they chose to make T'Challa the first black hero to lead a movie instead of Falcon or Warmachine.

I never said it was.

Look, we have to go back to the original post and original comparison. The thing that's different about Black Widow than Falcon or War Machine is that she was both an original Avenger and a character that played a significant role in the original MCU (Iron Man 2). This puts her in line with or ahead of Hawkeye in terms of MCU prominence. So it's natural to ask when they are going to get their own movies, and more so than the other two that started as and mostly remain sidekicks.

When Black Panther came out, you could ask why Hawkeye didn't get a solo movie before they introduced Black Panther, and the answer would be that they wanted to do something with a diverse/black lead. But you can't do that with Captain Marvel because Black Widow would make a female led movie as well.


That was because they had a more compelling solo story to tell with him than with any of the other candidates.

Which, to be fair, is at least part of the reason for going with Captain Marvel than Black Widow. But if someone grumbles about them inventing an entirely new character for their female led movie instead of going with Black Widow, that's not an unreasonable gripe considering how long Black Widow's been around.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not sure what it is about female-centered films that brings out this stuff...
Yeah, I'm not sure if it's the "only women allowed at these viewings at the theater" or the "no more white men doing reviews or interviews" that is constantly getting picked up by the media whenever these movies come out to whip certain people into a frenzy.

I wonder if the news surrounding the movies was more about Captain Marvel's story, or Wonder Woman's suite of powers, or Rey's backstory on Jakku, and less on the Force being Female, the Future being Female, guys at the gym needing to reconsider their gender norms, etc ad nauseum, the reactions would be different.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with expectations to go see a superhero movie being curbed by the inclusion of a spiteful, resentful, ideological nonsense.

...but I'm at this point approaching it as I would watching a train wreck.
On this we are of like mind.

Literally from the moment the loud part of the Internet decided to become Kilgraves,
https://66.media.tumblr.com/323c99a85b1376748a162acf59e07ca2/tumblr_p5rw3sHuqG1tvhev2o3_400.gif
Oh, there was literally a moment when the Internet became multiple Kilgraves. Interesting.

...watching the reactions to this film has been a microcosms of pretty much everything that is toxic about my hobbies.
My Buzzword Detector is going off!

[Lacuna Caster]

You might want to check your Sarcasm Detector... :smallwink:

I don't know how well Alita's been doing... But I'll do my part and see it again! :smallcool:
My mistake? I gather Alita opened pretty strong in China and audience reception has been good, but box office take in the states was relatively meagre and critical reception has been... mixed. I enjoyed it myself, partly out of fondness for the source material, but I can understand why critics might see it as overstuffed and anticlimactic, which they apparently did.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Oh, there was literally a moment when the Internet became multiple Kilgraves. Interesting.

Ah, you are one of those people who are incensed at how the word literally has two meanings since at the very least the 1700s, and seem determined to pretend it only has one of them.

Good, it means I don't need to listen to you.

Grey Wolf

[Lemmy]

I'm fairly sure he was talking about the people who were literally complaining that she wasn't smiling in that first trailer. (And to which the legitimate point was raised that, why should she have to?)

(Worth repeating that first teaser trailer was so badly put together, it made me say things I feel a little guilty over.)

The third trailer, which actually shows more of the actual, y'know, character interaction is SO MUCH better - you can actually SEE some of her character beyond the determination. (Speaking of, where a lot of people seem to assume wooden, I more thought controlled professionalism. Since a lot of professional - especially military - folk when doing their actual job DO turn off the extraneous emotions. Hell, I do it myself. Which, y'know, makes sense for her character. Now, do that with, say Deadpool or something and then you'd have a problem.) Personally, after that third trailer I ALREADY like her. And all that it took was, like, two or three lines of dialogue. Which just damns that first teaser trailer so hard.
People weren't complaining that she didn't smile... They were complaining that she didn't show any expression.

"Oh, but she's a brain-washed military person!"... So what? So was Bucky. And Gamora is pretty close too. And they both were quite expressive.

[Aotrs Commander]

People weren't complaining that she didn't smile... They were complaining that she didn't show any expression.

Some quarters were very actually, not hyperbolically, demanding that she should smile more. (And photoshopped her doing so.)

(To the point Brie Larson responded - quite rightly - by posting she agreed, so as to fit in with the rest of the MCU showing some photoshopped pictures of other Marvel heroes with similar rictus grins slapped on them. And with the point that you don't have to smile. (Mr Spock would doubtless concur, come to that.))



It would be beneath me to suggest that there would be overlap in the gentleman in question to the ones who were outraged at the new She-Ra not being appropriate fap-fodder.



So yes, while they may well be some legitimate complaints labelled at her acting (and given how, as I keep saying, how utterly pants that first trailer was, I'mma not judge that until I see the proper movie), there was also still a heavy load of sexist bovine excrement layered on it.

(Which is why that hitting it out of the park is so important and get a seond thing like Wonder Woman slash black Panther, and not... Other things that have been similarly controversial.)

[Dienekes]

People weren't complaining that she didn't smile... They were complaining that she didn't show any expression.

"Oh, but she's a brain-washed military person!"... So what? So was Bucky.

Bucky didn't have a single expression other than grim mindlessness until the final fight with Cap in Winter Soldier. And I guess, pain when he was being tortured.

[Lemmy]

Some quarters were very actually, not hyperbolically, demanding that she should smile more. (And photoshopped her doing so.)

(To the point Brie Larson responded - quite rightly - by posting she agreed, so as to fit in with the rest of the MCU showing some photoshopped pictures of other Marvel heroes with similar rictus grins slapped on them. And with the point that you don't have to smile. (Mr Spock would doubtless concur, come to that.))And those people were a minuscule minority of the critics... But were used by people defending Brie as an excuse to generalize all criticism as sexism... As expected. It's the go-to tactic these days whenever a woman or her work is criticized.



It would be beneath me to suggest that there would be overlap in the gentleman in question to the ones who were outraged at the new She-Ra not being appropriate fap-fodder.Riiiiight... I'm sure that's exactly why people didn't like the new She-ra... No other possible reason... Nope. None at all. It's obviously because it isn't "appropriate fap-fodder". That sounds like a very real reason, and not a an obvious over-generalization that advocates of the series use to dismiss all criticism...


So yes, while they may well be some legitimate complaints labelled at her acting (and given how, as I keep saying, how utterly pants that first trailer was, I'mma not judge that until I see the proper movie), there was also still a heavy load of sexist bovine excrement layered on it.Possible. Even likely... But not nearly as much as people claim. The vast majority of critics were (justifiably) complaining about the main actress looking so bored and uninteresting that she could make Stallone look like Jim Carey by comparison.

[Lethologica]

Yeah, the number of people who complained explicitly about She-Ra not being sexy are a minority of those who complained that she was designed to appeal to a demographic other than them, but really, what else is new?

And considering the success Stallone has had, maybe folks should reserve judgment - oh wait, it's the internet culture war, never mind. Carry on with your nonsense, the adults will have left the room.

[Lacuna Caster]

Yeah, the number of people who complained explicitly about She-Ra not being sexy are a minority of those who complained that she was designed to appeal to a demographic other than them, but really, what else is new?
I know very little about the original She-Ra and even less about about who she was designed for, but I think one can argue she wasn't visually over-sexualised to a greater extent than He-Man. She certainly had more clothes on.

[Lethologica]

I know very little about the original She-Ra and even less about about who she was designed for, but I think one can argue she wasn't visually over-sexualised to a greater extent than He-Man. She certainly had more clothes on.
Not really what I was aiming for, and I mostly agree anyway (He-Man's design is somewhat different pandering but no less so), so sure.

[theNater]

Alita hasn't been doing so hot, sure, but I understand that Wonder Woman did rather well, particularly by DCU standards?
Alita's hasn't been out for very long, and has grossed $265 million so far. This means it's already ahead of Blade Runner 2049($259 million worldwide).

Wonder Woman grossed $821 million, putting it third in the DCEU after Batman v. Superman's $873 million and Aquaman's $1,138 million+(it's still in theaters). Suicide squad made $746 million, and the other two were in the $600 million range.

For comparison, the nearest MCU films are Thor: Ragnarok at $854 million and Guardians of the Galaxy at $773 million; as far as I'm aware both are widely considered very successful.

[GloatingSwine]

I know very little about the original She-Ra and even less about about who she was designed for, but I think one can argue she wasn't visually over-sexualised to a greater extent than He-Man. She certainly had more clothes on.

I'm pretty sure you know as well as I do that when a male character is depicted not wearing a lot it is, in almost all cases, intended to be aspirational to a male audience not attractive to a female audience.

Whereas most female character designs always have concessions to the male gaze. In the case of the original She-Ra it was visible cleavage and an improbably short skirt.

There was Internet Salt when those aspects were taken away.

[Lacuna Caster]

I'm pretty sure you know as well as I do that when a male character is depicted not wearing a lot it is, in almost all cases, intended to be aspirational to a male audience not attractive to a female audience.
I know that's how it tends to be taken, but I'm really not clear on why, exactly. The average male has roughly the same chance of looking like Schwarzenegger that the average woman has of looking like Christina Hendricks.

I mean, sure, there are some indications that lots of women find, uh... bishonen types attractive, if that's the word, but if Magic Mike is any indication then the bodybuilder physique is not without appreciation. It's not really clear how actively redesigning He-Man for appeal to the female gaze would change very much while still being PG-13-compatible.

[Kitten Champion]

She-Ra was designed to resemble the generic female plastic doll they had warehouses full of. They didn't exactly have much room to be creative when they're trying to get as much value as theoretically possible out of the action figure/doll molds they used, something Mattel proved particularly ingenious at what with their Barbie cash-cow and all.

Still, we need to respect the deep artistic integrity of poorly animated toy commercials you watched when you were 7.

[Lacuna Caster]

She-Ra was designed to resemble the generic female plastic doll they had warehouses full of. They didn't exactly have much room to be creative when they're trying to get as much value as theoretically possible out of the action figure/doll molds they used, something Mattel proved particularly ingenious at what with their Barbie cash-cow and all.

Still, we need to respect the deep artistic integrity of poorly animated toy commercials you watched when you were 7.
Look, with the possible exception of Cities of Gold, my personal sentimental attachment to 80s cartoons happens to be at or near zero. I am quite happy for them to go the way of the dodo, or not, as present-day tastes demand.

I'm just pointing out that the arguments about sexualisation are either based on obvious double-standards or seem to amount to accusations of thought-crime. (And if you start telling me that, e.g, Demona and Goliath need to live up to some kind of modesty standards, there shall be pistols at dawn.)

[Tyndmyr]

Isn't this like refusing to watch any Marvel movie that stars a man because Hawkeye hasn't received his own movie yet?

In all fairness, I'd love the crap out of a Hawkeye movie. Or even a Black Widow/Hawkeye teamup film.

I *believe* Winter Soldier has the most Black Widow in it of any film, and she's great in it, and it was a good film all round. Im down for more of that. I'm not gonna refuse to see anything over it, but I definitely see the point that these two probably deserve films of their own.

[The Jack]

...

Okay, I stand gobsmacked at that sentence.

Half of the former are LITERALLY the latter.

There's not much for one to say to people who dont understand context.

Its exciting when there's a good female lead... about as exciting when there's a good male lead. I loved both aquaman and wonderwoman.

But female heroes come often. They're not a rarity. The writing quality varies, but most hero shows will represent them in an ensemble.
Also for female heroes: they're for men as well.

Non-token Black heroes on the big screen come once a decade.
Black heroes are black for a black audience. Anyone can like them for being fun or well portayed, but a big part of them is specifically for a minority that desperately wants representation.

[Lemmy]

Yeah, the number of people who complained explicitly about She-Ra not being sexy are a minority of those who complained that she was designed to appeal to a demographic other than them, but really, what else is new?Considering that demographic is what kept a 30-yo franchise relevant, and that the whole reason producers choose to use an existing property instead of creating a new one is because they want to cash in on the existing fans, that demographic has every right to dislike the new version. Just like people have the right to get angry when Will Smith makes Genie look like a deformed Shrek.

Besides "it wasn't targeted at your demographic" means exactly nothing, as that doesn't make any criticism any less relevant. Not to mention that people can (and do) like or dislike stuff not specifically targeted at them.


And considering the success Stallone has had, maybe folks should reserve judgment - oh wait, it's the internet culture war, never mind. Carry on with your nonsense, the adults will have left the room.Stallone is great! I love his movies... Because he is in a bunch of cool movies playing a bunch of cool roles... But he isn't exactly a paragon of good acting skills...


I'm pretty sure you know as well as I do that when a male character is depicted not wearing a lot it is, in almost all cases, intended to be aspirational to a male audience not attractive to a female audience.

Whereas most female character designs always have concessions to the male gaze. In the case of the original She-Ra it was visible cleavage and an improbably short skirt.
Because as we all know... Literally all men want to look like huge mountains of bulging muscles and no women want to look like beautiful, fit, buxom super-models... That's why every man who goes to the gym strives to look like a Mr.Olympia champion and breast implants make no money. Also only super-buff male characters are popular among men and why no beautiful female character is popular among women...

Most characters are always designed to look cool in some way. And that generally includes being good-looking. While certain characters and franchises focus more on what appeals to some demographics, let's not pretend that character designs like Sailor Moon, Chun-Li, Wonder Woman, MJ Watson, Spider-Gwen, Tifa Lockhart appeal only to men. Hell! The original She-Ra herself and the dolls on which she supposedly was based were certainly not designed with a male audience in mind... And I'd better dollars to pennies that if given the choice, most women would rather look like the original She-Ra than the new one.

Hah! Even Anita Sarkeesian uses a much prettier version of her as her avatar.

As much as people love to deny it these days... Women do want to be attractive. And so do men. And in fact, nearly every super-strong character isn't as muscular as they should be to perform their feats of strength and physical prowess... Even when they aren't supposed to be super-strong.

And if you think male characters aren't made "unrealistically attractive" for the sake of the female audience, just google-image "romance novels" and check the male characters on the covers of the books that show up...


There was Internet Salt when those aspects were taken away.There was internet salt when a property they loved had the characters change so much as to become all but completely irrecognizable.

Personally, I haven't seen the new She-ra and don't really care about it. I was never a big fan of She-Ra or He-man. But both my sisters and my 4 nieces didn't like the way the new She-Ra looks... Are they angry about losing "fap fodder"? How about almost all my female friends who didn't like it either?

[Lethologica]

Considering that demographic is what kept a 30-yo franchise relevant, and that the whole reason producers choose to use an existing property instead of creating a new one is because they want to cash in on the existing fans, that demographic has every right to dislike the new version. Just like people have the right to get angry when Will Smith makes Genie look like a deformed Shrek.
I'm gonna give a little more credit to the demographic that actually made the new show - the principal creator wasn't even born for the original show. The show is designed for the children of the original fans, not the OG fans themselves, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.


Besides "it wasn't targeted at your demographic" means exactly nothing, as that doesn't make any criticism any less relevant. Not to mention that people can (and do) like or dislike stuff not specifically targeted at them.
You have this precisely backwards. What means nothing are complaints rooted in the presumption that the nostalgia demographic is the design target, complaints like "they changed her now she sucks". Anyone is free to like or dislike the show for whatever reasons they want, but some of those reasons are dumb. And expecting the remake to adhere to the '80s barbie-clone character designs instead of taking cues from more current shows is pretty dumb. Adora getting a younger look, bigger eyes, less cleavage etc. didn't happen in a vacuum. 30 years of cartoon evolution happened between then and now, and show like She-Ra now don't look like shows like He-Man did back then. The nostalgia demo should be old enough to recognize this.


Stallone is great! I love his movies... Because he is in a bunch of cool movies playing a bunch of cool roles... But he isn't exactly a paragon of good acting skills...
Stallone is a fine actor and I can't credit anyone who disagrees with much knowledge of acting. But that's hardly the point. The more you rag on Stallone while admitting he made and was in great movies that you love, the more it looks like you either (a) only care about acting range when it's a trailer for a female-led movie, or (b) only rag on Larson as a scapegoat for largely unrelated issues you have with the MCU. This obviously isn't your intent, so maybe you should be picking a different line of argument.

[Lacuna Caster]

I'm gonna give a little more credit to the demographic that actually made the new show - the principal creator wasn't even born for the original show. The show is designed for the children of the original fans, not the OG fans themselves, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Primarily, sure, but if it was designed exclusively for that purpose, Lemmy is correct to point out there would be no advantage to re-using an existing IP. If you're trying to capitalise on an existing property and/or fanbase, said fanbase is entitled to expect some concessions to their own preconceptions about the material.

Now, whether the specific details of Adora's, ah, physical presentation are the most substantive change to fixate on is another question. I should state for the sake of full disclosure that I have actually watched a few episodes of the new She-Ra and I don't have any specific complaints in terms of, you know, actual storytelling and character dynamics. So on balance I certainly don't think the reboot is a change for the worse.

I would just point out that the 2002 He-Man reboot (which is almost as far from the present as it was from the original, Gods help me), certainly retained the protagonist's robust physique and broadly similar character designs across the board. The rough equivalent in that case would have been making Prince Adam into a 14-year-old boy. (Not that such a thing would be intrinsically unworkable- the basic premise of the other Captain Marvel is that a magic word turns Billy Batson into a super-powered grownup, after all.) But it would... certainly raise a few eyebrows about puberty metaphors, given the working title.

[Lemmy]

I'm gonna give a little more credit to the demographic that actually made the new show - the principal creator wasn't even born for the original show. The show is designed for the children of the original fans, not the OG fans themselves, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.Again, the whole reason an existing property was used, instead of creating a new one was to appeal to the fans of the original series, even if it's with the intent of making them introduce their children to the franchise.


You have this precisely backwards. What means nothing are complaints rooted in the presumption that the nostalgia demographic is the design target, complaints like "they changed her now she sucks". Anyone is free to like or dislike the show for whatever reasons they want, but some of those reasons are dumb. And expecting the remake to adhere to the '80s barbie-clone character designs instead of taking cues from more current shows is pretty dumb. Adora getting a younger look, bigger eyes, less cleavage etc. didn't happen in a vacuum. 30 years of cartoon evolution happened between then and now, and show like She-Ra now don't look like shows like He-Man did back then. The nostalgia demo should be old enough to recognize this.

It's not so much "they changed her now she sucks" as much as it is "her new design sucks, now she sucks". There are still lots of properties where the female characters don't look like little boys. Legend of Korra has a female protagonist, was quite successful (although it did suffer because Nickelodeon managed it horribly) and had quite feminine characters, even the more muscular ones, like Korra herself... Or Toph's cop daughter, whose name I forget right now.


Stallone is a fine actor and I can't credit anyone who disagrees with much knowledge of acting.
I could say the same as someone who thinks Stallone is a good actor, rather than a guy who knows how to choose his roles, has some personal charisma and was in the right place, at the right time.


The more you rag on Stallone while admitting he made and was in great movies that you love, the more it looks like you either (a) only care about acting range when it's a trailer for a female-led movie, or (b) only rag on Larson as a scapegoat for largely unrelated issues you have with the MCU. This obviously isn't your intent, so maybe you should be picking a different line of argument.Ah.. There we go! Good ol' "every criticism is sexism!"... Never fails to show up.

A- That's quite a leap of logic there... First, because I at no point said the movie was bad, only that Larson seems to be a pretty bad actress, or that her performance in the CM trailer is terrible. Second, because unlike Stallone, I don't know her acting career enough to have confidence that she can pick good roles (whether CM is a good character or a good movie remains to be seen. Personally, I'll do the same I've done with a lot of recent movies and wait for reviews from friends and critics I respect before deciding whether or not to see the movie in theaters). Third, because criticizing her acting skills doesn't mean "I only care about acting range when it's a female-led movie"... The fact that you can non-ironically make that accusation boggles my mind! You can be damn sure that A LOT of male actors had their acting criticized just as much. Or don't you remember the outcry when Ben Affleck was announced as Batman? And Hayden Christensen's acting in the SW prequels was so bad it remains a meme to this day.

Now... Maybe Brie Larson will surprise me like Ben Affleck did... But based on the traillers, I wouldn't bet on it.

B- I have no idea wtf you even mean... "Scapegoat for unrelated issues I have with MCU"? Wut? I didn't even mention the MCU... You know literally nothing significant about me... But I guess it's super easy to end up believing you can read people's mind when assume everyone who disagrees with your opinion is sexist.

[Kitten Champion]

I would just point out that the 2002 He-Man reboot (which is almost as far from the present as it was from the original, Gods help me), certainly retained the protagonist's robust physique and broadly similar character designs across the board. The rough equivalent in that case would have been making Prince Adam into a 14-year-old boy. (Not that such a thing would be intrinsically unworkable- the basic premise of the other Captain Marvel is that a magic word turns Billy Batson into a super-powered grownup, after all.) But it would... certainly raise a few eyebrows about puberty metaphors, given the working title.

Eh, I think it'd make the He-Man transformation more impactful and fun if Prince Adam wasn't already a tall, well-muscled man. I think they made him lankier in the reboot, but the original Prince Adam just looked like He-Man with clothes on really.

Presumably to fit the same body-type for the toy molds they used on everyone.

[Lethologica]

Primarily, sure, but if it was designed exclusively for that purpose, Lemmy is correct to point out there would be no advantage to re-using an existing IP. If you're trying to capitalise on an existing property and/or fanbase, said fanbase is entitled to expect some concessions to their own preconceptions about the material.
To some, naturally. I draw the line differently than Lemmy, though. To wit:


Again, the whole reason an existing property was used, instead of creating a new one was to appeal to the fans of the original series, even if it's with the intent of making them introduce their children to the franchise.
The whole reason to use an existing property over a new one remains a pretty modest portion of the reason to make the show at all. It doesn't make the nostalgia demo the target. So while the show may have elements that appeal to that demo, it doesn't exist for their sake and isn't beholden to their vision of the show.


It's not so much "they changed her now she sucks" as much as it is "her new design sucks, now she sucks". There are still lots of properties where the female characters don't look like little boys. Legend of Korra has a female protagonist, was quite successful (although it did suffer because Nickelodeon managed it horribly) and had quite feminine characters, even the more muscular ones, like Korra herself... Or Toph's cop daughter, whose name I forget right now.
LoK is certainly on the adult end of modern style because it is the original creators appealing to the original fans as, not the, but a primary demo, so the show's target is quite a bit older than She-Ra's. Yet it still reflects changes in design since the '80s (such as, yes, the muscle).

As far as not looking like little boys, I would contend that She-Ra is another such series, but of course the knee-jerk critics never got so far as watching the lead go dancing in a dress...so I'm sure they're perfect authorities on the subject, of course.

The complainers don't have a basis to say the new design sucks except for how it used to look when they liked it. Hence, "they changed it, now..."


I could say the same as someone who thinks Stallone is a good actor, rather than a guy who knows how to choose his roles, has some personal charisma and was in the right place, at the right time.
He is all of those things and also a fine actor. But of course they hand out Oscar nominations like candy, so who can ever say? Oh well, guess I'll just go pull out First Blood and check. And, yep, looks like the dude can act.


Ah.. There we go! Good ol' "every criticism is sexism!"... Never fails to show up.

A- That's quite a leap of logic there... First, because I at no point said the movie was bad, only that Larson seems to be a pretty bad actress, or that her performance in the CM trailer is terrible. Second, because unlike Stallone, I don't know her acting career enough to have confidence that she can pick good roles (whether CM is a good character or a good movie remains to be seen. Personally, I'll do the same I've done with a lot of recent movies and wait for reviews from friends and critics I respect before deciding whether or not to see the movie in theaters). Third, because criticizing her acting skills doesn't mean "I only care about acting range when it's a female-led movie"... The fact that you can non-ironically make that accusation boggles my mind! You can be damn sure that A LOT of male actors had their acting criticized just as much. Or don't you remember the outcry when Ben Affleck was announced as Batman? And Hayden Christensen's acting in the SW prequels was so bad it remains a meme to this day.

Now... Maybe Brie Larson will surprise me like Ben Affleck did... But based on the traillers, I wouldn't bet on it.

B- I have no idea wtf you even mean... "Scapegoat for unrelated issues I have with MCU"? Wut? I didn't even mention the MCU... You know literally nothing significant about me... But I guess it's super easy to end up believing you can read people's mind when assume everyone who disagrees with your opinion is sexist.
I forgot that you hadn't made these comments as a criticism of Captain Marvel, which was my basis for trying to understand how your comparison of Brie Larson to Stallone would support such a criticism. My mistake. (Please note, however, that I explicitly did not make the presumptions you accuse me of making.)

[Devonix]

Eh, I think it'd make the He-Man transformation more impactful and fun if Prince Adam wasn't already a tall, well-muscled man. I think they made him lankier in the reboot, but the original Prince Adam just looked like He-Man with clothes on really.

Presumably to fit the same body-type for the toy molds they used on everyone.

He man in the 2002 Reboot grows at least 2 feat and packs on a solid 100 extra pounds of muscle. The transformation is pretty much just as dramatic as the Current She-ra transformation.

[Lacuna Caster]

He man in the 2002 Reboot grows at least 2 feat and packs on a solid 100 extra pounds of muscle. The transformation is pretty much just as dramatic as the Current She-ra transformation.
As far as I can tell, the current version (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6_2Cb5iu-I) just gets... scaled up 15% or so? It's very understated, by comparison, and there's certainly no visible, ah, secondary-sex-development.

[Devonix]

As far as I can tell, the current version (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6_2Cb5iu-I) just gets... scaled up 15% or so? It's very understated, by comparison, and there's certainly no visible, ah, secondary-sex-development.

Eh she goes from a more normal 14 year old to a bulkier 14 year old. It's not like the power ages her up, just makes her larger and more powerful. This isn't a Captain Marvel situation. Where it's a kid becoming an adult.

[Eldan]

Bucky didn't have a single expression other than grim mindlessness until the final fight with Cap in Winter Soldier. And I guess, pain when he was being tortured.

And I find him one of the least interesting characters in the MCU and wouldn't want to see a movie starring him.

[GloatingSwine]

Again, the whole reason an existing property was used, instead of creating a new one was to appeal to the fans of the original series, even if it's with the intent of making them introduce their children to the franchise.

Remember that the original target audience for the show was also female.

Complaints from men that the characters in the show aimed at 8 year old girls aiming to catch them from their mother's nostalgia are meaningless. The fact that the primary thrust of the complaints is "character is not attractive enough to men" (which you are echoing when you complain that the girls "look like little boys") would be actively disturbing if we didn't know they just come from a massive sense of pathetic entitlement.


I could say the same as someone who thinks Stallone is a good actor, rather than a guy who knows how to choose his roles, has some personal charisma and was in the right place, at the right time.

And you'd be wrong. Stallone has actually shown that he has a good amount of physical acting range, especially in Cop Land and Creed.


A- That's quite a leap of logic there... First, because I at no point said the movie was bad, only that Larson seems to be a pretty bad actress, or that her performance in the CM trailer is terrible. Second, because unlike Stallone, I don't know her acting career enough to have confidence that she can pick good roles (whether CM is a good character or a good movie remains to be seen.

So you don't know the career of Best Actress Oscar winner Brie Larson well enough to comment, but you feel like your comments are valid enough to share them with us?

It sounds like you just don't know a lot about what constitutes good acting at all.

[Lacuna Caster]

Complaints from men that the characters in the show aimed at 8 year old girls aiming to catch them from their mother's nostalgia are meaningless. The fact that the primary thrust of the complaints is "character is not attractive enough to men" (which you are echoing when you complain that the girls "look like little boys") would be actively disturbing if we didn't know they just come from a massive sense of pathetic entitlement.
Well, it's not quite coming exclusively (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvqWqQ1NuqI) from men. I mean, I'll confess to a twinge of "aw, boobs are gone" myself, given that was pretty much the only aspect of the original character that registered for me, but I can also consciously recognise that I'm probably not part of the intended core audience, so I suppose I can handle the disappointment. And having... forced myself to watch an episode or two of the original She-Ra, I think I can say the modern incarnation is a net improvement.

I'm a little more worried about the impending Daria reboot, to be honest. Aside from the 90s' edgy angst being today's mainstream (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZswmxq-K1M), I'm deeply skeptical that Jane Lane can be trivially replaced as co-star. D & J had genuine chemistry in ways that were relevant to their relationships and long-term evolution as characters, and while I won't say that Jodie Langdon is undeserving of her own development and focus, she is not a plug-and-play swap-in for the same role.

[Dienekes]

And I find him one of the least interesting characters in the MCU and wouldn't want to see a movie starring him.

Completely fair. It just runs counter to the notion that Bucky showed any emotional depth during his mind-controlled phase as the one I quoted says.

[Devonix]

The original She-Ra cartoon was never aimed at boys. It was not only accidental, it was unwanted that boys would be interested in it. It was done primarily to offload other figures.

And don't take my word for it, there are numerous records and interviews about how they saw the brand as devaluing He-man and thought it was making and would make boys less likely to get he man figures.

Also the reason that these properties get brought back isn't just to try and get the old fans to buy stuff. That's only the smallest percentage of where the money and viewership comes from. The execs basically say. Hey Kids liked this in the 80s, maybe Kids in the 2010s will like it too. You also get People in the 80s have kids now, and maybe they'll get these toys for their kids now.

They don't care about attracting the original audience, and it would be frankly silly if they did. A cartoon series and toy line primarily targeting the original audience of a series would be one of the biggest financial disasters ever.

[Lacuna Caster]

The original She-Ra cartoon was never aimed at boys. It was not only accidental, it was unwanted that boys would be interested in it. It was done primarily to offload other figures.

And don't take my word for it, there are numerous records and interviews about how they saw the brand as devaluing He-man and thought it was making and would make boys less likely to get he man figures.
Devaluing in the sense of cannibalising sales, or devaluing in the sense that boys were actively turned off He-man just by association?

[Dr.Samurai]

Completely fair. It just runs counter to the notion that Bucky showed any emotional depth during his mind-controlled phase as the one I quoted says.
Firstly, no one knows that she's brainwashed in all of the scenes in the trailer. Bucky displays emotions when he's not actively under the influence of the command code, and even still things like confusion, hesitation, pain register. There's just a lot of assumptions baked into the "she's brainwashed" cop-out that probably aren't true and don't really make sense anyways.

Secondly, Bucky is not the superhero of his own movie and starring in any trailer. If a Bucky movie was coming out and all we saw in the trailer was a guy walking around and standing around and looking around with all the personality of a T-800, it would not look good.

[HMS Invincible]

And I find him one of the least interesting characters in the MCU and wouldn't want to see a movie starring him.

The point is Bucky gets a pass despite being an unearned rival to Captain America. All he does is scowl and show off how grim dark cool he is. Heck, he even has the same amnesia crap that they criticize cap marvel for having.

Men are given the chance to show their potential. Women have to prove it before being given the chance. That's life in a nutshell.

[Lacuna Caster]

Secondly, Bucky is not the superhero of his own movie and starring in any trailer. If a Bucky movie was coming out and all we saw in the trailer was a guy walking around and standing around and looking around with all the personality of a T-800, it would not look good.
Apropos of nothing, rotten tomatoes has just removed the 'want to see' function entirely, for reasons that are aaaaabsolutely and totally unrelated (https://www.cbr.com/captain-marvel-rotten-tomatoes-review-process/) to Captain Marvel.

Thing is, I actually agree that people shouldn't be making up their minds about a film before real reviews come out, and this is by no means an unreasonable design choice. But methinks the executive doth protest too much.

[Talakeal]

I personally don't mind the new She-ra design except for the fsct that she wears a miniskirt over short pants. That is a look I don't think anyine can pull off.

Also, not seeing how anyone thinks she looks like a boy with that hair and those eye lashes, although her fairly androgynous figure does maker her look a bit younger than fourteen.

[Dr.Samurai]

The point is Bucky gets a pass despite being an unearned rival to Captain America. All he does is scowl and show off how grim dark cool he is. Heck, he even has the same amnesia crap that they criticize cap marvel for having.
He is the villain in the trailer, not the person carrying the movie. It is not an equal comparison to say "no one complained about Bucky in the trailer, but they complained about Captain Marvel in the trailer".

Men are given the chance to show their potential. Women have to prove it before being given the chance. That's life in a nutshell.
With all due respect, I don't think we should make these types of sweeping generalizations based off of flimsy premises in the first place. For everyone that wonders innocently why a fanbase gets turned off to this stuff, this is why.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of terminator-type henchmen that are women in movies that were badass and menacing; Lori Quaid from the Total Recall reboot (admittedly not very recent but this is off the top of my head) and Gazelle from Kingsman. Oh, and that woman from John Wick 2.

They didn't need to prove themselves first for being women. We watched the movies and I (at least) liked them very much for being formidable enemies to the protagonist.

The difference is that they are henchmen, not superheroes. And again I posit that if they were starring in a trailer as the main hero character it wouldn't be nearly as cool.

[The Patterner]

Apropos of nothing, rotten tomatoes has just removed the 'want to see' function entirely, for reasons that are aaaaabsolutely and totally unrelated (https://www.cbr.com/captain-marvel-rotten-tomatoes-review-process/) to Captain Marvel.

I'm on the fence here, it's obvious that the Captain Marvel comments was part of the decision process, but it feels more like an 'the straw that broke the camels back' situation than anything else.

And the only thing I can say about that is, well, good of them.

[Dr.Samurai]

Apropos of nothing, rotten tomatoes has just removed the 'want to see' function entirely, for reasons that are aaaaabsolutely and totally unrelated (https://www.cbr.com/captain-marvel-rotten-tomatoes-review-process/) to Captain Marvel.

Thing is, I actually agree that people shouldn't be making up their minds about a film before real reviews come out, and this is by no means an unreasonable design choice. But methinks the executive doth protest too much.
Yeah, it makes me wonder what was the point of that "Want to see" function. I guess only to add to the excitement/hype to see the movie, not to take away.

[Keltest]

I'm on the fence here, it's obvious that the Captain Marvel comments was part of the decision process, but it feels more like an 'the straw that broke the camels back' situation than anything else.

And the only thing I can say about that is, well, good of them.

I agree. Internet troll rage is not a review, and that's about all that was meaningfully being generated by that for several high profile movies. Im definitely in the camp of "we need to stop the internet culture of just immediately spouting whatever unfiltered nonsense enters our minds" so this is a welcome step in that direction, even if just a small one overall.

[Devonix]

Devaluing in the sense of cannibalising sales, or devaluing in the sense that boys were actively turned off He-man just by association?

What happened was that He man was basically Mattel's first boys line that actually outsold the girl toys. This was because a large portion of girls were purchasing He Man figures. And they didn't want to share the success.

She Ra was originally going to be a larger scale figure as well. They are on record and still say that it would have made He man look bad if his sister had a bigger toy.

[Lacuna Caster]

What happened was that He man was basically Mattel's first boys line that actually outsold the girl toys. This was because a large portion of girls were purchasing He Man figures. And they didn't want to share the success.

She Ra was originally going to be a larger scale figure as well. They are on record and still say that it would have made He man look bad if his sister had a bigger toy.
Wait. I thought the idea was that they basically had a bunch of surplus barbie-doll molds (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?576027-Captain-Marvel-Trailer&p=23739002&viewfull=1#post23739002) and could produce cheap sword-and-board knockoffs without having to invest much effort in redesign?

I can't really see a financial argument for why girls purchasing he-man toys would be a bad thing unless it came at the expense of other doll sales, though I also don't see that creating a distaff counterpart for that specific market is a bad thing, per se. Do you have any links to the sources here?

[HMS Invincible]

He is the villain in the trailer, not the person carrying the movie. It is not an equal comparison to say "no one complained about Bucky in the trailer, but they complained about Captain Marvel in the trailer".

With all due respect, I don't think we should make these types of sweeping generalizations based off of flimsy premises in the first place. For everyone that wonders innocently why a fanbase gets turned off to this stuff, this is why.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of terminator-type henchmen that are women in movies that were badass and menacing; Lori Quaid from the Total Recall reboot (admittedly not very recent but this is off the top of my head) and Gazelle from Kingsman. Oh, and that woman from John Wick 2.

They didn't need to prove themselves first for being women. We watched the movies and I (at least) liked them very much for being formidable enemies to the protagonist.

The difference is that they are henchmen, not superheroes. And again I posit that if they were starring in a trailer as the main hero character it wouldn't be nearly as cool.
I dunno if this counts as goal post shifting, but the evidence regarding the unequal treatment of men vs women is much studied but inappropriate to post here. I can pm you some abstracts or journalistic summaries about how women get statically worse outcomes.

[Aotrs Commander]

Wait. I thought the idea was that they basically had a bunch of surplus barbie-doll molds (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?576027-Captain-Marvel-Trailer&p=23739002&viewfull=1#post23739002) and could produce cheap sword-and-board knockoffs without having to invest much effort in redesign?

I can't really see a financial argument for why girls purchasing he-man toys would be a bad thing unless it came at the expense of other doll sales, though I also don't see that creating a distaff counterpart for that specific market is a bad thing, per se. Do you have any links to the sources here?

The nasty truth about a lot of marketing like that is that the companies explicitly WANT to segregate things into Girl's Things and Boy's Things because they believe that it DOES make them more money (how true this is I have no actual idea and even if it is, whether it is itself a self-created and perpetuating function and how true it is over time in an ever-changing sea of socital values is another set of questions).

You don't have to look that hard, though, to see things like cartoons getting cancelled because it was attracting the Wrong Audience (e.g. it was not generating enough toy sales). (Hasbro, at least, appears to have learned a bit in some instances when MLP exploded beyond what they expected, that this isn' entirely true.)

Worth mentioning the whole "pink-is-for girls, blue is for boys" is as modern a phenominon as being a fad in the 1940s, before coming back in force in 1980s - a hundred years ago, papers were telling you pink was the colour for boys. And this was entirely an artifice of companies who, when prenatal testing came in to know the sex of the child, meant they could flog stuff targeted at one or t'other.

Little bit eyeglow-opening and alarming, I thought, that.

(Tangentially, then, Prince Adam's pink shirt was pretty much coming in at the time where pink had BEEN the manly colour.)

[The Glyphstone]

Two weeks to release, and of course the movie is getting review-bombed on RT.

https://www.inverse.com/article/53523-captain-marvel-rotten-tomatoes-review-bombing-explained

[Lacuna Caster]

The nasty truth about a lot of marketing like that is that the companies explicitly WANT to segregate things into Girl's Things and Boy's Things because they believe that it DOES make them more money (how true this is I have no actual idea and even if it is, whether it is itself a self-created and perpetuating function and how true it is over time in an ever-changing sea of societal values is another set of questions).
Things like pink/blue colour-coding seem fairly arbitrary, but there is reasonable evidence of differences in play preferences that show up from pretty much the earliest age at which it's possible to do behavioural testing (like 10 months). The history of gender relations within the israeli kubbutzim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz#Gender_equality) is also suggestive. It's not all biology, but I think the case for some degree of innate sex differences is pretty strong.

I'm not sure how this is immediately relevant to She-Ra and He-Man, however. The two characters had a nominally shared setting, stories with a similar tone and production values, and a supporting cast that's almost patronizingly clearly a re-skinned version of the other. The argument for sexism there isn't so much that Mattel was pushing different values as that it clearly invested so little effort in differentiating one from the other.


Two weeks to release, and of course the movie is getting review-bombed on RT.

https://www.inverse.com/article/53523-captain-marvel-rotten-tomatoes-review-bombing-explained
We were, uh, just discussing how the user-reviews section has been removed entirely.

[The Glyphstone]

Things like pink/blue colour-coding seem fairly arbitrary, but there is reasonable evidence of differences in play preferences that show up from pretty much the earliest age at which it's possible to do behavioural testing (like 10 months). The history of gender relations within the israeli kubbutzim (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz#Gender_equality) is also suggestive. It's not all biology, but I think the case for some degree of innate sex differences is pretty strong.

I'm not sure how this is immediately relevant to She-Ra and He-Man, however. The two characters had a nominally shared setting, stories with a similar tone and production values, and a supporting cast that's almost patronizingly clearly a re-skinned version of the other. The argument for sexism there isn't so much that Mattel was pushing different values as that it clearly invested so little effort in differentiating one from the other.


We were, uh, just discussing how the user-reviews section has been removed entirely.

My bad. With two pages of off-topic arguing about He-Man, I missed that bit.

As apologies for my skimming, can I offer a 1-hour behind-the-scenes livestream of the movie's cat Goose being a perfectly normal cat on set?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=22&v=Uky_Y_7JevE

[Aotrs Commander]

My bad. With two pages of off-topic arguing about He-Man

You know, with the astounding frequency I have for completely inadvertently de-railing threads and topics with what is intended to be off-hand, one-shot comments that I'd have learned not to make them now.

...

...

...

Jennifer Hale was Best Shepard-

FRAGDAMMIT!

[Jan Mattys]

Alita's hasn't been out for very long, and has grossed $265 million so far. This means it's already ahead of Blade Runner 2049($259 million worldwide).

Wonder Woman grossed $821 million, putting it third in the DCEU after Batman v. Superman's $873 million and Aquaman's $1,138 million+(it's still in theaters). Suicide squad made $746 million, and the other two were in the $600 million range.

For comparison, the nearest MCU films are Thor: Ragnarok at $854 million and Guardians of the Galaxy at $773 million; as far as I'm aware both are widely considered very successful.

Of course, Batman vs Superman's 873 million is considered a semi-failure because they are not backseat characters. They are literally the two biggest IP of DC, and as such were expected to make all of the money.

(the fact that 900 million before homevideo is no longer considered "all of the money" is appalling to me, but that's another problem :smallsmile: )

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I dunno if this counts as goal post shifting, but the evidence regarding the unequal treatment of men vs women is much studied but inappropriate to post here. I can pm you some abstracts or journalistic summaries about how women get statically worse outcomes.

Be aware that board rules apply to PMs as much as they do to public posts. If you feel you can't post it here, you also shouldn't PM it.

ETA:

Of course, Batman vs Superman's 873 million is considered a semi-failure because they are not backseat characters. They are literally the two biggest IP of DC, and as such were expected to make all of the money.

It's more the fact that it didn't make enough money to justify the amount it cost to make. A 100% ROI is, it seems, not enough.

(Of course, a big part of it is that WB didn't pocket $900M [even on opening night, cinemas get to keep some of the ticket price. Unless it's Star Wars], so the amount they made - just like the amount they poured into the project - is at best guesstimates)

Grey Wolf

[Sapphire Guard]

If your business model requires an individual film to be one of the most successful films of all time as its basic standard for success, then the business model is the problem, not the film.

BVS made a 'mere' 872 million, but WonderWoman, Suicide Squad, and Aquaman all exceeded expectations.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If your business model requires an individual film to be one of the most successful films of all time as its basic standard for success, then the business model is the problem, not the film.

BVS made a 'mere' 872 million, but WonderWoman, Suicide Squad, and Aquaman all exceeded expectations.

WB's business model for the last ~10 years prior to the DC Franchise did require an individual film to be the most successful film as its basic standard for success. It was the Harry Potter film of that year. And it worked. Which means that when the golden goose finally grew too old to keep laying golden eggs like clockwork, they scrambled to replace it, rather than reconsider the business model. It is not an irrational decision, all things considered, since it is clearly possible to do (having been done by WB before) and is currently working for the competition.

Grey Wolf

[Tyndmyr]

Just off the top of my head, I can think of terminator-type henchmen that are women in movies that were badass and menacing; Lori Quaid from the Total Recall reboot (admittedly not very recent but this is off the top of my head) and Gazelle from Kingsman. Oh, and that woman from John Wick 2.

...

The difference is that they are henchmen, not superheroes. And again I posit that if they were starring in a trailer as the main hero character it wouldn't be nearly as cool.

I suspect that half the characters in the Deadpool franchise count as both. Granted, there's some slight tension between "menacing" and "hero", but they're often more serious and scary than Deadpool is.

Anyway, long as we're bouncing around, thoughts on the OTHER Captain Marvel movie coming out? The DC one? I have both curiosity and concern.

[Aotrs Commander]

Anyway, long as we're bouncing around, thoughts on the OTHER Captain Marvel movie coming out? The DC one? I have both curiosity and concern.

I tried to explain that whole multiple Captain Marvels mess to my 93-year old grandmother today and on no I've gone cross-eyeglowed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW27kyh7PVM).

[Dr.Samurai]

Anyway, long as we're bouncing around, thoughts on the OTHER Captain Marvel movie coming out? The DC one? I have both curiosity and concern.
That looks pretty bad too lol. Just seems overly goofy. Not really my thing. (I thought the humor in Thor: Ragnarok was too much but most people liked it.)

Here is CBG19's take on the Captain Marvel controversy. It's a long video but the gist is... Brie Larsen seems like a stick in the mud, Carol Danvers is a stick in the mud, in that sense the casting is spot on, but no one wants to go see a movie that doesn't look fun, and Captain Marvel looks like the opposite of fun. Also, this movie will probably be mediocre at best but people will try to sell it as good and blame misogyny on how well or poorly it does.

I happen to agree with her. But that's probably because I'm an evil man. And to be fair, she doesn't think Brie meant anything malicious with her comments. She thinks she's just not that likable and came across as insulting.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N46JZ3xCeM

[Tron Troll]

this movie will probably be mediocre at best ]

I agree too.

Sure the movie will make money...even the DC movies make money....but then it will just fade. A lot like a DC movie.

[Lacuna Caster]

I dunno folks. There hasn't been an outright bad MCU entry in a long time, and I don't expect that Ms. Danvers is likely to buck the trend. It will probably fall somewhere between good and excellent, make pots of money, and set up for multiple tie-ins, sequels, or spinoffs. Which is... sort of the defacto outcome for a marvel flick, at this point.

[HMS Invincible]

That looks pretty bad too lol. Just seems overly goofy. Not really my thing. (I thought the humor in Thor: Ragnarok was too much but most people liked it.)

Here is CBG19's take on the Captain Marvel controversy. It's a long video but the gist is... Brie Larsen seems like a stick in the mud, Carol Danvers is a stick in the mud, in that sense the casting is spot on, but no one wants to go see a movie that doesn't look fun, and Captain Marvel looks like the opposite of fun. Also, this movie will probably be mediocre at best but people will try to sell it as good and blame misogyny on how well or poorly it does.

I happen to agree with her. But that's probably because I'm an evil man. And to be fair, she doesn't think Brie meant anything malicious with her comments. She thinks she's just not that likable and came across as insulting.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N46JZ3xCeM

I laughed when CBG said paraphrased "I hate carol danvers/ms marvel in the comics because she's an alcoholic unlikable bitch, which brie larson can't elevate. Separately, Iron man is bad in the comics ( implied cuz he's an alcoholic unlikable bitch), but Robert Downey Jr elevates iron man in the movies." Double standards makes me sad. It's sad when women tear down other women.

I liked DC marvel lightning manchild. It's fun, and not all grimdark like DC constantly is. Maybe they're learning a lesson about not being so grimdark so much? Also, ironic that you think DC marvel is too goofy, but Captain marvel is too grimdark.

[Dr.Samurai]

I dunno folks. There hasn't been an outright bad MCU entry in a long time, and I don't expect that Ms. Danvers is likely to buck the trend. It will probably fall somewhere between good and excellent, make pots of money, and set up for multiple tie-ins, sequels, or spinoffs. Which is... sort of the defacto outcome for a marvel flick, at this point.
Marvel *does* have a good track record, and I'm sure this movie will make lots of money. But I don't think it will be good. At least, judging by the trailers it doesn't look very interesting. But Marvel has been pretty good about making their movies passable.

I don't know that I'd agree Marvel hasn't made a "bad" movie yet. We probably have different ideas of what constitutes "bad". That said, bad is not the same as mediocre, so I stand by my comment :smallsmile:

I laughed when CBG said paraphrased "I hate carol danvers/ms marvel in the comics because she's an alcoholic unlikable bitch, which brie larson can't elevate. Separately, Iron man is bad in the comics ( implied cuz he's an alcoholic unlikable bitch), but Robert Downey Jr elevates iron man in the movies." Double standards makes me sad.
It's not a double standard. She is saying that RDJ took a C-list character and made him a superstar that launched the MCU. And she is saying that it doesn't appear Brie Larson is up to do the same for Captain Marvel.

Yes, they are two different sexes. No, that doesn't mean the determination is based on that. It's a prediction based on the behavior of the actress. And she left room to be wrong and admit she was wrong once the movie comes out. She's making a judgement. There are still some people out there that aren't afraid to do so.

It's sad when women tear down other women.
Well, I think that's an uncharitable interpretation of what she did.

Also, ironic that you think DC marvel is too goofy, but Captain marvel is too grimdark.
Not really. There's a sweet spot for me. Wonder Woman tackles concepts like human nature and love and war and it takes itself seriously (in a superhero context of course). That's good for me. Ragnarok tried to cram a zinger in every few seconds, that's not good for me. BVS' torrential downpour at night with everyone waxing philosophical? Too much. Some goofy looking guy acting like a kid in a grown man's body? Not for me either lol.

My favorite MCU movie to date is still Winter Soldier. So maybe I lean more towards a serious tone. But I think Marvel has mostly had a good mix of seriousness and levity in its movies. Maybe they need to throttle back on the levity a little bit. But...

That said, I don't think the trailers for Captain Marvel show a grimdark movie. I think the trailers are mostly uninteresting and the character looks mostly uninterested. The director said "look dead inside" and Brie Larson shot a thumbs up and gave her best performance to date lol. That's not a commentary on women, or women leads, or women superheroes, or any other strawman someone wants to prop up. It's a commentary on what we saw in the trailers.


EDIT: @Lacuna Caster - Giving it a little more thought... I may be conflating "disappointing" with "bad", and so maybe I'm more in agreement with you than I thought. I have to think about it some more (and probably rewatch many of the earlier MCU movies) to really say if I think any of them are "bad".

[Cockroach King]

Meh. Could be good. Honestly the only comic book film I'm really looking forward to this yeah is Shazam. Never thought I'd say/type that.

[The Jack]

Not really. There's a sweet spot for me. Wonder Woman tackles concepts like human nature and love and war and it takes itself seriously (in a superhero context of course). That's good for me. Ragnarok tried to cram a zinger in every few seconds, that's not good for me. BVS' torrential downpour at night with everyone waxing philosophical? Too much. Some goofy looking guy acting like a kid in a grown man's body? Not for me either lol.


Almost exactly my view. People thought I was a weirdo when I said I mostly hated Ragnorok.


If adult shazaam didn't look so goofy it'd sail for me, but he does. Kid Shazaam looks great.

[Lacuna Caster]

Marvel *does* have a good track record, and I'm sure this movie will make lots of money. But I don't think it will be good. At least, judging by the trailers it doesn't look very interesting. But Marvel has been pretty good about making their movies passable.

I don't know that I'd agree Marvel hasn't made a "bad" movie yet. We probably have different ideas of what constitutes "bad". That said, bad is not the same as mediocre, so I stand by my comment :smallsmile:

...EDIT: @Lacuna Caster - Giving it a little more thought... I may be conflating "disappointing" with "bad", and so maybe I'm more in agreement with you than I thought. I have to think about it some more (and probably rewatch many of the earlier MCU movies) to really say if I think any of them are "bad".
The Marvel entries that probably come closest to 'bad' in terms of general appraisal seem to be Ant-Man, Thor II and the 2008 Incredible Hulk. Of those, I'd personally say that Ant-Man was overly formulaic but not bad, exactly, Thor II was grimdark and formulaic, but not bad, exactly, and only Hulk was outright sub-par. That was over 10 years ago. (I found Spiderman: Homecoming to be infuriating for specific reasons related to the broken aesop of Parker's development, but I appear to be in a minority there.)

The more recent MCU movies have been getting 90%+ on rotten tomatoes with pretty high consistency, so barring strong evidence to the contrary, I expect that Captain Marvel will not be any different. Are there problems with the trailer and/or Brie's acting? I dunno, maybe. I thought the trailer/s for Black Panther also didn't look especially exciting, but BP wound up being a critical darling and doing a lot of business. Maybe they'll really drop the ball this time, but all else equal, I doubt it.

[Legato Endless]

The Marvel entries that probably come closest to 'bad' in terms of general appraisal seem to be Ant-Man, Thor II and the 2008 Incredible Hulk. Of those, I'd personally say that Ant-Man was overly formulaic but not bad, exactly, Thor II was grimdark and formulaic, but not bad, exactly, and only Hulk was outright sub-par.

You do know dark in grimdark doesn't mean literally dark right? The closest thing to grimdark (on both scales) in the MCU is Avengers 3 or Winter Soldier. Thor 2 isn't even the darkest movie of it's own trilogy, Ragnarok is ten times darker than either of its two prequels combined, and most people loved that movie. Sure, it's also the goofiest and ergo least grim, but it's by far the most thematically cynical in the series. As for grim, Thor 2 has a staggering amount of buddy comedy. There's Thor and Loki on a boat. Which is the only humor that hits the mark. There's craaaazy Erik Selvig. There's Darcy. Her new boyfriend/intern. There's the comedy bits that deflate comedy climax. Yeah, the movie was boring, but boring does not automatically equal grimdark.

[Metahuman1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D1q14ytid4



So near as we can tell, Fandango and Disney have decided for most if not all of us what we are allowed to go see starting March 8th. I'll give you precisely one guess what the only "mainstream" option is. :smallfurious:

This, by itself, warrants a boycott, and frankly I hope every single other movie studio get's a class action Lawsuit together and goes after Fandango over this stunt, along with any similar company's that are doing this, and they go after Disney and Marvel Studio's whom I'm quite certain are at the least strongly encouraging this.

[Xyril]

I laughed when CBG said paraphrased "I hate carol danvers/ms marvel in the comics because she's an alcoholic unlikable bitch, which brie larson can't elevate. Separately, Iron man is bad in the comics ( implied cuz he's an alcoholic unlikable bitch), but Robert Downey Jr elevates iron man in the movies." Double standards makes me sad. It's sad when women tear down other women.


...how is that even an interpretation? She literally said that Brie Larson is not appropriately cast as an alcoholic, unlikable bitch. That is not tearing down another woman, that's at worst criticizing her ability to handle a particular role, and at best, complimenting her for not being like that negative interpretation of Captain Marvel at all. And I generally agree. Before Iron-man, Robert Downey Jr. had done a great job playing damaged people who I would hate to have as a real life friend, but love watching in movies, so his casting made sense to me immediately. I think Brie Larson is a great actress, and I hope she handles the role well, but I haven't seen her in anything where she played this kind of character. Unlike that blogger, I don't assume from that fact that she'll necessarily be bad at this role--it just means she doesn't have the same proven track record.

Also, as I mentioned much earlier in this thread, I don't think that's the Captain Marvel we'll be seeing. Carol in recent comics was pretty much positioned as Tony Stark was, even so far as to take his place in Civil War II--she's got tremendous confidence in herself and her convictions, which are mostly justified by her tremendous abilities, which get her into trouble because she doesn't always display the sort of interpersonal skills her position of leadership requires. My sense from the admittedly vague trailers is that we're seeing something more of an amalgamation of her character at multiple points earlier on in her history: Ms. Marvel got kidnapped, brainwashed, or put into comas on a shockingly regular basis, and finding her own identity again and reconnecting with humanity always seemed like a challenge. On top of that, her military background made her a little weak on the whole interpersonal skills thing, particularly when dealing with other heroes, who she feels should automatically fall in line because they're working together towards similar goals, and I think a lot of the better renderings of the characters implied that she partly retreated into this mode as a defense mechanism when she was feeling particularly disconnected with humanity.

[Xyril]

This, by itself, warrants a boycott, and frankly I hope every single other movie studio get's a class action Lawsuit together and goes after Fandango over this stunt, along with any similar company's that are doing this, and they go after Disney and Marvel Studio's whom I'm quite certain are at the least strongly encouraging this.

I'm all in favor of encouraging massive, profitable litigation, but that's not how class actions work, and I imagine they'd use other means of redress. In particular, if it's just Disney freezing out everyone else (and that's a big if), even that massive behemoth isn't a bigger player than all of the other studios combined. Getting together and threatening to pull out from Fandango would be much less of a nuclear option: Fandango is big because it was the first service of its kind to do it well, and it has inertia behind it, but there are a lot of rival services that aren't big, but probably have the infrastructure in place to quickly supplant Fandango as #1 if the majority of studios suddenly refused to work with Fandango. A lawsuit is slow, messy, expensive, and more often than not doesn't leave any of the parties looking particularly great to the public.

Moreover, if Fandango has done the math at all, they should be very afraid to alienate the other studios at the behest of Disney. Disney has had a history of building their own services for their own content--just look at how they're pulling their content from other streaming services as they launch their own. A Fandango that's alienated the other big studios would basically be identical to a Disney-run ticket service in everything but ownership. Best case scenario, Disney will buy them out--most likely, Disney will use them until they're ready to launch their own service and then put them out of their misery like Old Yeller. Which we can't watch on Netflix anymore. Because Disney pulled it.

[Lemmy]

Remember that the original target audience for the show was also female.

Complaints from men that the characters in the show aimed at 8 year old girls aiming to catch them from their mother's nostalgia are meaningless. The fact that the primary thrust of the complaints is "character is not attractive enough to men" (which you are echoing when you complain that the girls "look like little boys") would be actively disturbing if we didn't know they just come from a massive sense of pathetic entitlement.The problem isn't that "it isn't attractive enough to men",asa much as you want to insist on that childish accusation... The problem is... The character doesn't look cool. And yes, there's a lot of overlap between both, since most people tend find things that look cool to also be attractive. If He-Man was rebooted looking like Ash Ketchum from pokémon, the creators of the show would hear the exact same criticism.


And you'd be wrong. Stallone has actually shown that he has a good amount of physical acting range, especially in Cop Land and Creed.
He got a lot better in recent years... And he has his moments. But he still not exactly a paragon of theater... But that's beside the point.


So you don't know the career of Best Actress Oscar winner Brie Larson well enough to comment, but you feel like your comments are valid enough to share them with us?Wait... So criticism of her acting performance isn't valid because I don't know her career? Does that mean criticism of a book isn't valid if I don't know the writer's history? If I don't know the career of a chef, does that mean I can't criticize him when he serves burnt food?


It sounds like you just don't know a lot about what constitutes good acting at all.For someone who calls other people "entitled", you sure sound arrogant and condescending... But that's to be expected of someone who tries so hard to push the "you disagree because you're sexist!" angle. It's the easy go-to tactic of silencing opposing PoVs these days.

I didn't like Thor 1 and 2. Nor have I liked any Superman movie in decades... And in BvS the only character I enjoyed watching was Wonder Woman... And I always make fun of Anakin's character in the prequels. A few days ago i watched Alita and enjoyed it more than every male-led movie I watched this year (and possibly last year as well). So much that I watched it a second time.

Man... I must be really sexist against men and hate male-led movies...

Or... You know... There were other reasons I dislike those things... And yet, for some reason, people like you insist that the only conceivable reason anyone could have a problem with Brie Larson's acting and/or the Captain Marvel movie is because of sexism. I just can't take seriously your implied accusations... Or anyone who insists on making them.

WW was a success and is well-deservedly widely considered the best DC movie in recent years (I haven't watched Aquaman yet and don't know how well it did). Last I heard, Alita is being praised quite a bit by audiences, even if "professional" critics don't seem to like it as much...

But criticizing Brie Larson and/or Captain Marvel! No way! I can only be because she's female! :smallsigh:

[GloatingSwine]

Fandango is wholly owned by Disney’s competitors NBC Universal and Warner Bros. Anyone who thinks they’re manipulating the market for their competitor is a moron.

[The Jack]

I think the marvel movies are mostly going by brand and the inter-connectivity more than their quality right now.

Along with the usual popular consensus of which films are bad:
Thor movies are bad, but Ragnorok was awful. Maybe I was just overly soured by the abysmal turning-chain joke with Surtur, the dumb rock character who ruins every meaningful moment he's in, and... It had good moments, but it was more painful to watch than fun.
Guardians of the Galaxy II felt like some idiot producer demanded a doubling down on everything that made GoG I so perfect... and it felt cynical to me. The Father-son bonding scenes were agonizing too. Maybe I just loved GoG I too much, but II polarized me for every scene.

But ey, I think the first captain america was the best one, an opinion apparently nobody shares.
Obviously, there's some very good movies, otherwise I wouldn't be discussing it, but I think a lot of them are liked because **** taste people being half as critical as I am.

[Lacuna Caster]

You do know dark in grimdark doesn't mean literally dark right? The closest thing to grimdark (on both scales) in the MCU is Avengers 3 or Winter Soldier. Thor 2 isn't even the darkest movie of it's own trilogy, Ragnarok is ten times darker than either of its two prequels combined, and most people loved that movie.
Hmm. You have a point. What actually happens in Ragnarok is substantially grimmer, I guess the generally flippant tone just disguises the fact. Weird, that.

On a largely unrelated note, was anyone else disappointed that Pepper Potts didn't just keep her Extremis powers at the end of IM3?

[GloatingSwine]

But ey, I think the first captain america was the best one, an opinion apparently nobody shares.


That's because the first Captain America was half an hour longer than the story it had. The last half an hour of the movie was an extended Wolfenstein cutscene montage.

The character arc of Steve Rogers into Captain America finished with the scene where he walked back into the camp with all the POWs he freed.

The rest of the movie didn't matter. Except need to freeze him for Avengers.


(Really, don't go back and watch those pre-Avengers Marvel movies that aren't the first Iron Man, they aren't that good).

[Xyril]

Wait... So criticism of her acting performance isn't valid because I don't know her career? Does that mean criticism of a book isn't valid if I don't know the writer's history? If I don't know the career of a chef, does that mean I can't criticize him when he serves burnt food?

I'm not invested enough in this to go back and parse your exact wording, so don't take this as personal to you. If you're making the blanket statement that someone is a bad actress, then yes, the fact that you've only seen a small sample of her work strongly diminishes your credibility, much like making a blanket judgment about a chef's ability because a dish was burned, probably by his sous chef. Criticizing a particular meal, or his performance on that particular night supervising his staff, totally legitimate. But in general, the stronger the assertion you want to make, the more knowledge you should have to back it up.



But that's to be expected of someone who tries so hard to push the "you disagree because you're sexist!" angle. It's the easy go-to tactic of silencing opposing PoVs these days.

One should be careful to avoid similar pitfalls; there are a few on this forum who try pretty hard to push the "You disagree because of the SJW agenda" angle as well--it's also an easy go-to tactic of silencing opposing PoVs these days.



And yet, for some reason, people like you insist that the only conceivable reason anyone could have a problem with Brie Larson's acting and/or the Captain Marvel movie is because of sexism. I just can't take seriously your implied accusations... Or anyone who insists on making them.


Apparently, you're not going to take me seriously after this, so I'll try to make a good point before you tune me out, but I think that is a legitimate criticism in some circumstances. For example, I was very disappointed in how Wrinkle in Time turned out, but I think it was fair to say that much of the criticism that the movie would "ruin the book to push the affirmative action agenda"--particularly, the portion of it that started before we even saw the first trailers--was motivated more by prejudice than by legitimate analysis of the movie. Again, because it came from people who literally couldn't have seen the movie yet.

I think some of the criticism has been... deserving of scrutiny in their own right, either because of the history of the person making that criticism, or because it tries way too hard to draw broad conclusions about specific people based on a very small sample of their work. But that doesn't mean I assume that all criticism is so motivated.

[Xyril]

The character arc of Steve Rogers into Captain America finished with the scene where he walked back into the camp with all the POWs he freed.

The rest of the movie didn't matter. Except need to freeze him for Avengers.


Narratively, you make a good point--it certainly wasn't a tightly structured movie towards the end. That said, I absolutely loved the movie because there was enough good action fan service to make up for the fact that there wasn't much character development during that bit of the movie. While I certainly respect the talent it takes to pack a lot of meaning into a shorter time, sometimes it's okay to enjoy watching a hero punch Nazis.

[HMS Invincible]

...how is that even an interpretation? She literally said that Brie Larson is not appropriately cast as an alcoholic, unlikable bitch. That is not tearing down another woman, that's at worst criticizing her ability to handle a particular role, and at best, complimenting her for not being like that negative interpretation of Captain Marvel at all. And I generally agree. Before Iron-man, Robert Downey Jr. had done a great job playing damaged people who I would hate to have as a real life friend, but love watching in movies, so his casting made sense to me immediately. I think Brie Larson is a great actress, and I hope she handles the role well, but I haven't seen her in anything where she played this kind of character. Unlike that blogger, I don't assume from that fact that she'll necessarily be bad at this role--it just means she doesn't have the same proven track record.

https://youtu.be/7N46JZ3xCeM?t=567 9:27 of the video.
"She is just boring to me; she's also a not fun bitch. She's not fun, she's a recovering alcoholic. I will say that Brie Larson casting is great because you know she's zero fun just like Carol Danvers." Are you gaslighting people? CBG comic book lady is not here to applaud Brie Larson. She has white male comic book fans to cater to. That's her audience, and she says so at the beginning when she criticizes Brie Larson( when Brie Larson dumps on white male "true fans" of comic book heroes).

I thought IM3 was going to be darker than expected cuz of the trailers. Turned out to be a bit lighthearted, but less comedic than Thor Ragnorak. Ragnorak trailers made it sound very grimdark.
I'm expecting comedy levels between Iron man 3 and Ragnorak, but closer to or even below IM3. My worst expected scenario is a snoozer strokefest like Captain America Origin, or the godawful Thor 1 origin. Ugh please spare me the hero's journey back to grace and power.

[Keltest]

I thought IM3 was going to be darker than expected cuz of the trailers. Turned out to be a bit lighthearted, but less comedic than Thor Ragnorak. Ragnorak trailers made it sound very grimdark.
I'm expecting comedy levels between Iron man 3 and Ragnorak, but closer to or even below IM3. My worst expected scenario is a snoozer strokefest like Captain America Origin, or the godawful Thor 1 origin. Ugh please spare me the hero's journey back to grace and power.

Im tentatively anticipating GotG levels myself. A lot of Marvel stuff distracts you from the really horrific stuff going on by cracking a joke in the foreground, but Carol and the Skrulls are both a bit more tame compared to, say, literal Ragnarok, and are less inherently comedic characters than how Thor turned out. I expect Carol to be the straight (wo)man to a lot of people reacting to what is from their perspective a lot of random nonsense.

[Xyril]

https://youtu.be/7N46JZ3xCeM?t=567 9:27 of the video. Are you gaslighting people? CBG comic book lady is not here to applaud Brie Larson. She has white male comic book fans to cater to. That's her audience, and she says so at the beginning when she criticizes Brie Larson( when Brie Larson dumps on white male "true fans" of comic book heroes).


This was the quote you chose to share:

"I hate carol danvers/ms marvel in the comics because she's an alcoholic unlikable bitch, which brie larson can't elevate."

I made my response based solely on how you decided to summarize that video for us. As Lemmy fairly pointed out, some folks play the misogyny card too readily, and the only time you decided to pull actual quotes to support your assertions, it didn't actually support your assertions. I stand by my reasoning, by the way--while I love RDJs performances, there's nothing about his public persona or his acting roles that makes me think he would be a particularly great human being to hang out with, so "not Robert Downey Jr." isn't a particularly damning insult to me.

Unwarranted personal attacks bother me--I was very tempted to respond in kind. Instead, I'll just say that I'm sorry for not watching the full video. Actually, if what you're saying is to be believed, no, I'm really not, and I'm probably going to steer far away from anything else she puts out, but I should have made the disclaimer that I was reacting only to your summary of the video because I didn't have a chance to pop open a video with sound yet.

I respectfully disagree on Captain America. I don't think it was a perfect movie, but it was enjoyable, and I have to admit that before Avengers, it was great every time I saw a comic book movie that wasn't outright terrible.

[Delicious Taffy]

This is looking like one of those Venom situations, where everybody whines and cries over the movie looking horrible, and then it turns out to be a fantastic film.

[Mechalich]

Im tentatively anticipating GotG levels myself. A lot of Marvel stuff distracts you from the really horrific stuff going on by cracking a joke in the foreground, but Carol and the Skrulls are both a bit more tame compared to, say, literal Ragnarok, and are less inherently comedic characters than how Thor turned out. I expect Carol to be the straight (wo)man to a lot of people reacting to what is from their perspective a lot of random nonsense.

This seems likely. The trailers appear to show that they're letting the de-aged Sam Jackson do Sam Jackson-y action comedy things as the younger Nick Fury. Opinions may vary as to Jackson's action comedy chops, but it's certainly a role he's played may times before, and his 'you've got to be kidding me' face is pretty good. So is Clark Gregg's, though I suspect he won't be in the movie for very long.

The worrisome part of this movie, to me, is the all-Kree parts, because those are going to just be weird and are going to require a lot of emoting by actors trying to be serious while spewing jargon against a green screen. I have a nasty suspicion that it will all come off rather weightless, and Captain Marvel can't go all Guardians all over this stuff. Who's quipping their way through the space parts?

[Xyril]

This is looking like one of those Venom situations, where everybody whines and cries over the movie looking horrible, and then it turns out to be a fantastic film.

I kind of agree with you. I look at the criticism before the film came out, and it was absolutely off-base. I look at the many, many criticisms after the film came out--about the weird, disjointed tone, etc.--and I think that pretty much each individual criticism was absolutely accurate, and something that would bother me about pretty much any other film.

It was such a fun film to watch, though.

[Metahuman1]

Fandango is wholly owned by Disney’s competitors NBC Universal and Warner Bros. Anyone who thinks they’re manipulating the market for their competitor is a moron.

Which explains the Former Disney Executive currently running it. Yup. Can't imagine any scenario ever were someone might do something to the benefit of there former employer, who could become a prospective and profitable new employer down the line. It's certainly never happened before in human history and breaks all knows laws of all known scientific disciplines. #Sarcasm.

[Xyril]

Which explains the Former Disney Executive currently running it. Yup. Can't imagine any scenario ever were someone might do something to the benefit of there former employer, who could become a prospective and profitable new employer down the line. It's certainly never happened before in human history and breaks all knows laws of all known scientific disciplines. #Sarcasm.

This sort of thing happens, but usually requires a certain level of discretion. The moment something attracts any media attention at all is the moment your current boss starts taking a closer look--particularly if your current boss is in fact a sizable business entity that already has an interesting in keeping tabs on what the media has to say about it and its subsidiaries. It's certainly plausible that the current head of Fandango mistakenly thought it wouldn't attract any attention--if this is the case, it shouldn't be long until he has to come up with some very creative explanations.

[Metahuman1]

This sort of thing happens, but usually requires a certain level of discretion. The moment something attracts any media attention at all is the moment your current boss starts taking a closer look--particularly if your current boss is in fact a sizable business entity that already has an interesting in keeping tabs on what the media has to say about it and its subsidiaries. It's certainly plausible that the current head of Fandango mistakenly thought it wouldn't attract any attention--if this is the case, it shouldn't be long until he has to come up with some very creative explanations.

Perhaps. But there are other factors to consider as well. For starters, that NBC, one of the big owners, is actually either prepping for or in the midst of a change of leadership due to some recent court rulings. And they almost certainly have other problems to be focusing themselves with at the moment.

Further, this is coming on the heels of Rotten Tomato's, there subsidiary, removing the "want to see" function, just in time for Captain Marvels "Want to see." levels to get down to 27% and falling like a rock. Sure, they claimed that was a long in coming plan. But they claimed it in the same seconds they were doing it, no prior warning. Imagine you have a coffee maker at work at the office. Now imagine someone one day comes in and moves it too a store room were no one can use it, and announces as there unplugging it, picking it up, and walking too that store room, "The Company has a long running plan for this to go to the store room to reduce the risks of caffeine onset heart attacks! And in keeping with this long in running and long in coming plan, we are now moving the coffee maker too the store room. A that long in coming plan has always required.". Seem fishy? That's what the RT thing looks like right now. The fact that less than 48 hours later there owners do this compound each individual action, when you remember they happened that close together. (Honestly this one in particular is why I reject that this could have just been a glitch if it's not fixed in a few hours. See below.).


Next item, Disney has MASSIVE sway with all media outlets except the internet, and even then there sway is NOT nothing. Not at all. If Disney wants to sweep this under the rug for the next 2 too 3 weeks, long enough for opening numbers for Captain Marvel to reap what benefit they can form this stunt, they can do that. Or at least, they have a fair chance of it, given that they and those who seem sympathetic to this movie have already willfully declared anyone and everyone who doesn't think this movie and all involved in it are the greatest movie and persons involved in a movie of all of human history, anyone not holding that position exactly, are only not holding that exact position because they are Woman Hating Nazi's! No exceptions! Thus, anyone who reports on this or get's this to have media attention, is only doing so and only cares about this happening, because there a Woman Hating Nazi! Now, maybe it Streisand Effects. Or not. It doesn't matter, as long as it doesn't Streisand effect till AFTER opening week is over. Cause after opening week, what you described and any Streisand effect that might come from it won't matter, they already have there money. The only thing anyone involved begins to care even the tiniest bit about, except, perhaps, there political agenda.



And lastly, your argument really only holds water if this is fixed by end of business day, pacific time, it's both A) Been fixed and B) been announced a "Woops, we had an update and it caused a glitch. haha, how silly, no worries, fixed it now, life happens, sorry about that one though!". See, if it's announced as a glitch, that fails if it's not fixed immediately. And it's a "Glitch" that started late Friday, only affects a rather remarkably well planned coincidence of a movie and time frame (remarkably well planned coincidence should be read with as much sarcasm as possible. Just a heads up there for anyone reading this in general.), and doesn't get fixed till Monday, he might skate on it. I don't believe it for a second, but he might skate on it.

Any longer than that however, and I'm sorry, it ceases to be plausible.

And a Glitch is there most plausible defense if it's like this come Saturday Morning. Anything else, say a rogue employee doing it as a stunt, could have been fixed immediately, had an announcement made that there would be an explanation forth coming after an investigation, and that be that. If it's not fixed by early Saturday Morning, it's either the most interesting beneficial to Disney computer Glitch in history, or it's willful action on someone's part, and someone high up the food chain to keep it being set right almost immediately. If it's not fixed by End of Work Day Pacific Time (I'm specifying Pacific time to be generous too them if it IS a glitch. I highly doubt it's one for reasons of the beneficiary's and timing involved, but let it not be said I didn't give them a perfectly reasonable chance to make it right if it is.), there is absolutely no acceptable reason, justification or excuse for that. It HAS to be deliberate by someone high up, anything else is frankly absurd to even be considering.


And if it's deliberate, to benefit Disney's Subsidiary, I don't buy for one second that The Mouse didn't know all about it and encourage it, at a bare minimum. After all, all that would take to be true is one of millions of high level management to high level management phone calls that happen every day.

[HMS Invincible]

This was the quote you chose to share:

"I hate carol danvers/ms marvel in the comics because she's an alcoholic unlikable bitch, which brie larson can't elevate."

I made my response based solely on how you decided to summarize that video for us. As Lemmy fairly pointed out, some folks play the misogyny card too readily, and the only time you decided to pull actual quotes to support your assertions, it didn't actually support your assertions. I stand by my reasoning, by the way--while I love RDJs performances, there's nothing about his public persona or his acting roles that makes me think he would be a particularly great human being to hang out with, so "not Robert Downey Jr." isn't a particularly damning insult to me.

Unwarranted personal attacks bother me--I was very tempted to respond in kind. Instead, I'll just say that I'm sorry for not watching the full video. Actually, if what you're saying is to be believed, no, I'm really not, and I'm probably going to steer far away from anything else she puts out, but I should have made the disclaimer that I was reacting only to your summary of the video because I didn't have a chance to pop open a video with sound yet.

I respectfully disagree on Captain America. I don't think it was a perfect movie, but it was enjoyable, and I have to admit that before Avengers, it was great every time I saw a comic book movie that wasn't outright terrible. As is life, comparisons between actors is messier than I expected.
Last I heard, RDJ was a druggie who was in danger of being in dustbin of hollywood until Ironman happened. https://www.quora.com/How-did-Robert-Downey-Jr-get-the-role-of-Iron-Man Based on this google search, it's bit of this and that. Yes he's a talented guy, but at the time he was a wildcard/red flag because of his drug abuse. But the director went to bat for him over Marvel's concerns. It could have ended up like Johnny Depp trainwreck. It was a decent contrast of people being given a chance or double standard.

Sorry I implied you weren't arguing in good faith/trolling. You didn't look at the video which made my quote vaguer. If I was being rude, it's cuz whenever someone cries feminism/sjw/pc, it is so irritating. There's constant gaslighting about how you aren't thinking for yourself, and that you're brainwashed by the PC police. The whole time they keep claiming "I'm not sexist but..." . That's how you end up with posters 'innocently' putting up youtubes of how objectively they hate women (movies) except the algorithms are all tagged with horrifying crud. TLDR your response looked like a troll, so my post was sharper.

As for Captain America, Maybe we just have higher standards now? Phase 1 movies were so formulaic compared to now. Eg I enjoyed winter soldier implicit nazis way more than the feel good war against explicit nazis.

[The Glyphstone]

https://cosmicbook.news/no-captain-marvel-fandango-ticket-sales-conspiracy

Though blaming the lizard peopleMouse is far more fun than assuming Occam's Razor applies. Even with the note that Atom Tickets is also greying out every movie except CM.

[Aotrs Commander]

As for Captain America, Maybe we just have higher standards now? Phase 1 movies were so formulaic compared to now. Eg I enjoyed winter soldier implicit nazis way more than the feel good war against explicit nazis.

Personally, I thought last year's Arrowverse crossover with actual mirror universe Nazis was some of the best stuff they've ever done. I am wuite happy, for once, to see superheros punching bad guys without any of the oh so tired attempts to make everything grey or relatable, myself. (Or the completely unsubtle and totally mis-aimed thrust of Supegirl's current series of "look, aliens are imigrant anologues." Guys and girls? You're talking to the people watching a show specifically fo the alien superhero. I think you're already preaching to the damned choir.)

I also asked why the hell the DC movies couldn't have just been like that crossover, since it was (from all accounts, not got around to watching on DVD yet) a better Justice League movie than the actual Justice League movie...

[Metahuman1]

Occums Razor hmmm?

Ok. Which sounds more likely too you.

Option 1: Two companies, related only in that they compete with one another to do the same job, are happening to have exactly the same glitch in every detail and way at exactly the same time, and it's completely unrelated to anything, including the movie and time frame in question which already has a bunch of weirdness and questionable marketing choices made around it at a bare minimum.

Or.

Option 2: Someone at Disney or one of Disney's subsidiaries (Most likely Marvel or Marvel Cinema's cause of obvious relation too the movie in question.), almost certainly a person in a fairly high position within whichever of these they are within, are using clout and pull and leverage and whatever else they might have to pull some kind of stunt to try and boost the movie up buy shutting out the competition as much as they possibly can, cause there worried the press and marketing have backfired catastrophically on it? Maybe! with an "and that worse, the movie might actually be most if not all of the bad things the people who are already raising issues with it claim/expect it to be? " tacked on?






Gotta tell ya, that second option? Too me? Sounds LOADS simpler than the alternative now that it's not just Fandango but a competitor of there's as well doing the same thing at the same time.

[Lethologica]

https://cosmicbook.news/no-captain-marvel-fandango-ticket-sales-conspiracy

Though blaming the lizard peopleMouse is far more fun than assuming Occam's Razor applies. Even with the note that Atom Tickets is also greying out every movie except CM.
Thanks for pulling this up. I was digging around Fandango going, "Hmm, some theaters say they haven't sent in their schedules yet, but isn't it a little soon to have uncertainty over whether Alita's playing next week?" And I couldn't figure out how to check if this was common - Archive.org is good for a lot of things, but "Find out what ticket previews for the next two weeks looked like two years ago" isn't one of them.

EDIT: Meta, you aren't presenting the situation outlined in the article accurately, of course you're going to end up with a different conclusion.

[The Glyphstone]

Occums Razor hmmm?

Ok. Which sounds more likely too you.

.

Option 3 - it's not a glitch despite your sarcasm. It is, as mentioned in the article, that other theaters haven't turned in their viewing time slots yet for other films on that weekend. No studio is going to be stupid enough to try and open something on the same weekend as Disney's major release, so it will be the only 'guaranteed' option until Monday or Tuesday.

Seriously, there is a simple explanation that it even explains specifically why Captain Marvel is different - a new release gets a fixed, set number of screens - and you are fixated on the tinfoil hat explanation instead. You can do that if you want, but there is no grounding for reality in supporting. But then, that's pretty much how all conspiracy theories work.

[Xyril]

As is life, comparisons between actors is messier than I expected.
Last I heard, RDJ was a druggie who was in danger of being in dustbin of hollywood until Ironman happened. https://www.quora.com/How-did-Robert-Downey-Jr-get-the-role-of-Iron-Man Based on this google search, it's bit of this and that. Yes he's a talented guy, but at the time he was a wildcard/red flag because of his drug abuse. But the director went to bat for him over Marvel's concerns. It could have ended up like Johnny Depp trainwreck. It was a decent contrast of people being given a chance or double standard.


As I said, it's really hard to pin down whether it's a complement to point out how appropriate RDJ was to playing Tony Stark (I'm certainly biased because I never quite got back on board with the character in the comics the way I was before Civil War I), but the optimist in me hopes that the actor's personal life mirrored Stark's arc over the Iron Man trilogy and that he found some sort of personal redemption out of this second chance. Not the rest of the MCU though--I think Tony Stark regressed substantially in a lot of ways.



Sorry I implied you weren't arguing in good faith/trolling. You didn't look at the video which made my quote vaguer. If I was being rude, it's cuz whenever someone cries feminism/sjw/pc, it is so irritating. There's constant gaslighting about how you aren't thinking for yourself, and that you're brainwashed by the PC police. The whole time they keep claiming "I'm not sexist but..." . That's how you end up with posters 'innocently' putting up youtubes of how objectively they hate women (movies) except the algorithms are all tagged with horrifying crud. TLDR your response looked like a troll, so my post was sharper.

Seemed closer to "outright stated" than "implied," but other than that I can't really complain too much. You reacted without taking the time to fully digest my post. I'm guilty of the same thing. I didn't want to fall too far behind in the discussion, but I also didn't have my headphones with me, so I didn't do my due diligence



As for Captain America, Maybe we just have higher standards now? Phase 1 movies were so formulaic compared to now. Eg I enjoyed winter soldier implicit nazis way more than the feel good war against explicit nazis.

Oh, we absolutely have higher standards now in general, and particularly with the MCU stuff. If the worst MCU movie had come out between the real first Captain America movie and Iron-Man, we would have been grateful to get such a great superhero movie.

Also, I feel like the MCU arc has--intentionally or not--mirrored the early ages of comics. The early Phase I stuff tended to be a little less nuanced, a lot more gung ho about the action, and as you say, more than a little formulaic, which is really how the Golden Age stuff looks in retrospect. You have the Avengers and the Phase 2 stuff mirroring the shift to crossovers and more explicitly shared continuity, and the shift to more overtly political themes. You even have the two Hulks, which--unintentionally I'm sure--mirror the way the early comics just put a lot of stuff out there to see what sticks, with zero centralized quality control or adherence to continuity.

[Metahuman1]

Option 3 - it's not a glitch despite your sarcasm. It is, as mentioned in the article, that other theaters haven't turned in their viewing time slots yet for other films on that weekend. No studio is going to be stupid enough to try and open something on the same weekend as Disney's major release, so it will be the only 'guaranteed' option until Monday or Tuesday.

Seriously, there is a simple explanation that it even explains specifically why Captain Marvel is different - a new release gets a fixed, set number of screens - and you are fixated on the tinfoil hat explanation instead. You can do that if you want, but there is no grounding for reality in supporting. But then, that's pretty much how all conspiracy theories work.

Ok. Let's say, just for a moment, I accept that the only thing going on is Disney beat everyone too submitting there schedule for this movie.

How long should I continue accepting that? How many hours and days of the websites presenting that "The Only Thing In Theaters is this movie, there for if your going to the movies you only have the option to buy a ticket too and support this one movie, which is great cause this one movie was on shaky ground before this.", should I just write off as "Oh well soon as the schedules come in this will go away."?

Also, shouldn't the websites have instead waited, if all was normal, till they had at least 2 or 3 of the big company's schedule's in, and not JUST the Disney schedule? Wouldn't this have happened a few times before if it was normal to just do it as "If you get your schedule in ahead of the others, you can be the only option to be bought on the website till they get us there schedule's!", instead of this just so happening to be the very first time it's happened as far as anyone knows?

Can you please, explain those specific points away?

[The Glyphstone]

Ok. Let's say, just for a moment, I accept that the only thing going on is Disney beat everyone too submitting there schedule for this movie.

How long should I continue accepting that? How many hours and days of the websites presenting that "The Only Thing In Theaters is this movie, there for if your going to the movies you only have the option to buy a ticket too and support this one movie, which is great cause this one movie was on shaky ground before this.", should I just write off as "Oh well soon as the schedules come in this will go away."?

Also, shouldn't the websites have instead waited, if all was normal, till they had at least 2 or 3 of the big company's schedule's in, and not JUST the Disney schedule? Wouldn't this have happened a few times before if it was normal to just do it as "If you get your schedule in ahead of the others, you can be the only option to be bought on the website till they get us there schedule's!", instead of this just so happening to be the very first time it's happened as far as anyone knows?

Can you please, explain those specific points away?

Tuesday. This is also explained in the article - a new release has its screens booked in advance, they know exactly which screens in which theatres at which times will be showing it. Those screens are not booked a week in advance, they are booked months in advance. Disney didn't simply 'beat' other companies, literally no other nationwide movies are opening that weekend. Said theatres will not provide Fandango or Atom their schedules for any movies not getting first-run releases until Monday or Tuesday. And it's not the first time, that is the whole point of this - people are jumping on Captain Marvel as being evidence of a conspiracy when this is a regular occurrence.

So to answer the only specific point you actually asked, because all the others are misinformed/misunderstandings explained in that very simple and short article, Tuesday.

[Metahuman1]

Tuesday. This is also explained in the article - a new release has its screens booked in advance, they know exactly which screens in which theatres at which times will be showing it. Those screens are not booked a week in advance, they are booked months in advance. Disney didn't simply 'beat' other companies, literally no other nationwide movies are opening that weekend. Said theatres will not provide Fandango or Atom their schedules for any movies not getting first-run releases until Monday or Tuesday. And it's not the first time, that is the whole point of this - people are jumping on Captain Marvel as being evidence of a conspiracy when this is a regular occurrence.

So to answer the only specific point you actually asked, because all the others are misinformed/misunderstandings explained in that very simple and short article, Tuesday.

Then tell me this. What happens if Tuesday rolls around, and this doesn't promptly evaporate? If Tuesday morning should, and I should hop on Fandango or Atom, and I should still be informed that for the next week and such the only movie I can buy a ticket for is Captain Marvel?

[Lethologica]

Then tell me this. What happens if Tuesday rolls around, and this doesn't promptly evaporate? If Tuesday morning should, and I should hop on Fandango or Atom, and I should still be informed that for the next week and such the only movie I can buy a ticket for is Captain Marvel?
Get as hot and bothered as you like. On Tuesday. Hypothetical outrage four days away is no cause for aggression today. Nothing out of the ordinary has even happened yet.

[Douglas]

I've seen this sort of thing before, booking an opening weekend viewing for a new movie on Fandango. For something as major as an MCU film, I can reserve my seat a month or more in advance, and I have done so a few times. The schedule for those days was, indeed, at that time quite barren of anything else, while showing a long list of times for the major new release.

Looking on Fandango for my local theater's schedules, March 8 through 12 show only Captain Marvel, but then on the 13th there's also Doctor Who: Logopolis, and over the next few days a few other special event showings of various things. March 15 doesn't even have Captain Marvel, it's just empty. A little farther out, March 21 through 28 have listings for Us, which has a March 22 release date, and are otherwise similarly empty.

So, yeah. Business as usual for a new release's first week.

Then tell me this. What happens if Tuesday rolls around, and this doesn't promptly evaporate? If Tuesday morning should, and I should hop on Fandango or Atom, and I should still be informed that for the next week and such the only movie I can buy a ticket for is Captain Marvel?
Then I will be very surprised.

[Xyril]

Then tell me this. What happens if Tuesday rolls around, and this doesn't promptly evaporate? If Tuesday morning should, and I should hop on Fandango or Atom, and I should still be informed that for the next week and such the only movie I can buy a ticket for is Captain Marvel?

Since everyone has been kind enough to honor your requests, perhaps you can indulge mine?

If Tuesday rolls around, and this doesn't promptly evaporate, what will you regret not doing now that could have changed things?

I'm not you, so I don't presume to know what you would do or how you would feel, but I believe that if I were placed in your position, I would maybe regret not getting angry a few days earlier, but otherwise, there's nothing I could have changed. I could have tried to push harder to convince people that my speculation was correct, but in my experience, being angrier earlier makes me a less effective advocate, not a better one. For that matter, insisting the my issue is too urgent to wait a few days for confirmation and that we should immediately assume I will be proven correct in a few days generally has the same effect. Now, perhaps there is in fact something that can be done, but only if done as soon as possible, with as many people on board as possible. If this is the case, it usually helps to lay out the reasons why, with as much specificity as possible regarding my sources, reasonable assumptions, and logical inferences.

If there's something you think we can do to impact the outcome, or to protect ourselves from Disney's allegedly duplicity, but only if we trust that your intuition is correct, lay out the case for us, and I promise that I will consider it in good faith. I get the feeling a lot of folks here would as well. Just a bit of friendly advice though--if you don't want that to change, you might want to reconsider the tone with which you're responding to folks. Whether or not it's your intent, it's coming off as a tad sarcastic and a little bit hostile.

[Lacuna Caster]

This is looking like one of those Venom situations, where everybody whines and cries over the movie looking horrible, and then it turns out to be a fantastic film.
Was it, though? Was it?

...I actually don't know, because I haven't seen it, but it's not like the reviews were stellar.

[The Jack]

Venom is hard to bear for the first act. It's **** and it goes nowhere. When venom actually appears it becomes a dumb but fun romp mostly through buddy comedy interactions. The last cgi fight was cool too. It's like wonder woman where you're here for the great character but a big section of the movie really brings it down .

[comicshorse]

Seconded. 'Venom''s first half is pretty poor but once you get Tom Hardy talking to Tom Hardy it becomes a really weird, but funny, buddy comedy

[Dienekes]

Was it, though? Was it?

...I actually don't know, because I haven't seen it, but it's not like the reviews were stellar.

It was not. A few ok ideas in the last third, but nothing clever or funny enough to make up for the rest of that boring drain.

[Lethologica]

If anything, Venom is complementary to Captain Marvel. Venom appeared to be a looming disaster as yet another origin story, but this time of a Spiderman villain...without Spiderman. With no clear pluses in either the premise or production departments, the only thing that could be counted on was lead actor Tom Hardy turning in a good performance. Captain Marvel, on the other hand, is a safe bet to be at least good to most audiences because of the reliable studio and the perfectly decent premise, except for all of the brouhaha surrounding the lead. (Note: I'm only lukewarm on the Marvel style, but it's undeniably effective at appealing to a broad audience.)

[Delicious Taffy]

Was it, though? Was it?

...I actually don't know, because I haven't seen it, but it's not like the reviews were stellar.

Ignore the reviews. Always ignore the reviews. Critics don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Venom is absolutely fantastic. The first half-hour, like people have said, is a little slow, but I think that actually works in its favor. Once Venom shows up, it turns into this weird mix of buddy comedy and monster movie that's unusually satisfying to watch. The bromance between Eddie and Venom is the movie's strongest point. If you have a chance to see it, I'd say go for it and form your own opinion.

[Legato Endless]

My bold prediction is the next thread on this is going to either be another hot mess or have lots of disguised back pedaling and trying to rebrand the narrative. Anything else requires the internet to show an uncharacteristic understanding of nuance.

Yes, I am equating the playground to the internet. All politics is local on the interwebz.

[Devonix]

Ignore the reviews. Always ignore the reviews. Critics don't know what the hell they're talking about.

Venom is absolutely fantastic. The first half-hour, like people have said, is a little slow, but I think that actually works in its favor. Once Venom shows up, it turns into this weird mix of buddy comedy and monster movie that's unusually satisfying to watch. The bromance between Eddie and Venom is the movie's strongest point. If you have a chance to see it, I'd say go for it and form your own opinion.

I always listen to critics, I just don't always agree with them. The reason for that being, the reason I go to a critic is because you can perspectives on film making, design, and storytelling structure from other people who've studied the medium. I can discover things about a film I may not have noticed when I was approaching it from a different angle.

[Lacuna Caster]

Ignore the reviews. Always ignore the reviews. Critics don't know what the hell they're talking about.
...Eh, with rare exceptions (Pitch Black at 59%, really?), the combination of an RT/metacritic score + my-general-genre-preferences predicts what I'm going to enjoy with pretty good accuracy. I'll probably see it at some point, but not in theatres.


My bold prediction is the next thread on this is going to either be another hot mess or have lots of disguised back pedaling and trying to rebrand the narrative. Anything else requires the internet to show an uncharacteristic understanding of nuance.

Yes, I am equating the playground to the internet. All politics is local on the interwebz.
Like I said, I'm pretty confident the movie is going to be good, and I don't think having a couple of female-led MCU entries would be such a bad thing, per se. There would have been more graceful ways to segue into it, though. (I still think Evangeline Lilly should have been the protagonist of Ant-Man, after all.)

[The Glyphstone]

The only critic I listen to is Howard Tayler of Shlock Mercenary, who's not really a critic. But I've found his movie reviews to be such a close match to my own opinions on if a movie is good/bad that they are now my go-to guide for whether I'll see something at all.

[Tvtyrant]

Critics are only useful if their interests align with yours. I know I have almosylt nothing in common with the media consensus on grimdark versus banter, I love grimderp movies and find the snark of Marvel increasingly dull. I also thought the best marvel movie was Winter Soldier and the worst was Ragnorak.

Which isn't to say those critics are wrong, just that I don't enjoy the same things they do.

[Dr.Samurai]

If I was being rude, it's cuz whenever someone cries feminism/sjw/pc, it is so irritating.
Trust me, the feeling is mutual. Whenever someone cries "sexist, misogynist, racist, toxic" it's quite irritating as well. Especially when the same complaints (http://www.mtv.com/news/2619133/batman-v-superman-why-so-serious/) about heroes not smiling in a trailer were leveled at Henry Cavill's depiction of Superman and Ben Affleck's portrayal of Batman in Batman v Superman. Most people don't want to see a miserable moody somber all powerful superhero on screen. It's fine to complain about Henry Cavill and Superman I guess, since I don't remember all the accusations of sexist male fanboys. But complain about this trailer with a *gasp* WOMAN in it and suddenly we're unveiling the putrid rotten dark heart of society. I can't roll my eyes hard enough.

All to say... I empathize with you :smallsmile:.

Was it, though? Was it?

Not. At. All.

It didn't look good from the trailers either, but I went to see it because of Tom Hardy and... well Venom of course. But a fantastic film? Nowhere close.

There was a good dynamic with Hardy and Venom, but that's about all I can give the film. Even that is a stretch. It's closer to say that the concept/execution of Brock being able to hear Venom was done well. But I was really disappointed with Hardy's performance. He was like an idiot child most of the time. The end scene was a giant CGI battle in the dark so... not really my thing either.

To Delicious Taffy's point though, maybe this is an instance of people whining at a trailer for a fantastic movie. I'm not sure what the point is though. It begs the question; why? I mean... I take complaints at face value mostly. The comment almost reads like these people can't be satisfied or reflexively complain. Maybe that's the point? But that seems more like a dismissive conclusion to draw for the sake of dismissing criticisms more than anything else.

The trailers for Man of Steel and Captain America: Civil War got me super hyped to see the movies. The trailer for Guardians of the Galaxy didn't however. This Captain Marvel trailer doesn't have me hyped either. I'm not sure what that says about how well this movie will do. (Though I expect it will do well because Marvel.)

[Metahuman1]

Since everyone has been kind enough to honor your requests, perhaps you can indulge mine?

If Tuesday rolls around, and this doesn't promptly evaporate, what will you regret not doing now that could have changed things?

I'm not you, so I don't presume to know what you would do or how you would feel, but I believe that if I were placed in your position, I would maybe regret not getting angry a few days earlier, but otherwise, there's nothing I could have changed. I could have tried to push harder to convince people that my speculation was correct, but in my experience, being angrier earlier makes me a less effective advocate, not a better one. For that matter, insisting the my issue is too urgent to wait a few days for confirmation and that we should immediately assume I will be proven correct in a few days generally has the same effect. Now, perhaps there is in fact something that can be done, but only if done as soon as possible, with as many people on board as possible. If this is the case, it usually helps to lay out the reasons why, with as much specificity as possible regarding my sources, reasonable assumptions, and logical inferences.

If there's something you think we can do to impact the outcome, or to protect ourselves from Disney's allegedly duplicity, but only if we trust that your intuition is correct, lay out the case for us, and I promise that I will consider it in good faith. I get the feeling a lot of folks here would as well. Just a bit of friendly advice though--if you don't want that to change, you might want to reconsider the tone with which you're responding to folks. Whether or not it's your intent, it's coming off as a tad sarcastic and a little bit hostile.

It's fairly simple. It takes time for pressure to mount. And there is a ticking clock till the movie is out. If it clears opening weekend and makes enough money to be a success on opening weekend, while being able to do the funny business of locking out the competition or mostly locking them out by making it so either you can't buy tickets for them at all, or you can only do so at the window of the theater, it will be too late. And further, they'll be given incentive to 1: Act as though it was a legitimate success when it wasn't because of this, and 2: to do it again the next time there looking at trouble with a movie that's coming out. Cause after all, it worked and there wasn't an rapid onset of customer backlash over it.

If people start applying pressure, now, as many as possible, we might yet see them scrap any such plans. If we wait till Tuesday or Wednesday, that close to when the movie is actually benefiting from this, I am very concerned that there won't be enough time to build enough outcry or pressure from said outcry and pressure, to make them abandon that action. That they will stick too there guns and effectively get away with muscling out the competition to boost up a movie that looks like it was, legitimately, in danger of flopping, largely due to a horrible casting choice, a worse marketing campaign, and the leads apparent unwillingness to not put her foot in her mouth. Again, remember, all they need is one good strong opening weekend showing and to make just a little more than they spent on it and it's a success, and nothing else matters too them. There stunt and political shenanigans succeeded, meaning they can do it as often as they like now till it does eventually fail.



So we can wait till Tuesday has come and gone. But my concern is if we do, it will be too late to do anything if there are shenanigans involved. Were as if we act now and raise hell about shenanigans, one of three things will happen. There was no shenanigans, they go about what they were going to do, and no harm was done. Or there were shenanigans, and they ignore us, in which case we tried. Or there were shenanigans, and they look at the hell being raised over it, and back off of it and call that particular plan and tactic off.

[Douglas]

There was no shenanigans, they go about what they were going to do, and no harm was done.
I think this one would actually go like this: There were no shenanigans, they go about what they were going to do, some people don't learn about or refuse to believe the lack of shenanigans and take action on their incorrect beliefs, and the movie's sales are decreased for no good reason. That may not be a big harm, and the companies affected can afford to take it, but it's still harm.

Meanwhile, multiple people with no connection to Disney whatsoever are saying it's not shenanigans, with an explanation of how and why, on their own initiative and with supporting evidence - for example, I cited the listing of Us on its opening week coming up with just as little else listed on the same days.

So why not believe them? What's more plausible, that Disney got every single online ticket sales service to go along with a plan that would hurt their own bottom line, in a way that has independent people somehow convinced that it's instead business as usual for the industry, or that it actually is business as usual for the industry?

[Lethologica]

It's fairly simple. It takes time for pressure to mount. And there is a ticking clock till the movie is out. If it clears opening weekend and makes enough money to be a success on opening weekend, while being able to do the funny business of locking out the competition or mostly locking them out by making it so either you can't buy tickets for them at all, or you can only do so at the window of the theater, it will be too late. And further, they'll be given incentive to 1: Act as though it was a legitimate success when it wasn't because of this, and 2: to do it again the next time there looking at trouble with a movie that's coming out. Cause after all, it worked and there wasn't an rapid onset of customer backlash over it.

If people start applying pressure, now, as many as possible, we might yet see them scrap any such plans. If we wait till Tuesday or Wednesday, that close to when the movie is actually benefiting from this, I am very concerned that there won't be enough time to build enough outcry or pressure from said outcry and pressure, to make them abandon that action. That they will stick too there guns and effectively get away with muscling out the competition to boost up a movie that looks like it was, legitimately, in danger of flopping, largely due to a horrible casting choice, a worse marketing campaign, and the leads apparent unwillingness to not put her foot in her mouth. Again, remember, all they need is one good strong opening weekend showing and to make just a little more than they spent on it and it's a success, and nothing else matters too them. There stunt and political shenanigans succeeded, meaning they can do it as often as they like now till it does eventually fail.



So we can wait till Tuesday has come and gone. But my concern is if we do, it will be too late to do anything if there are shenanigans involved. Were as if we act now and raise hell about shenanigans, one of three things will happen. There was no shenanigans, they go about what they were going to do, and no harm was done. Or there were shenanigans, and they ignore us, in which case we tried. Or there were shenanigans, and they look at the hell being raised over it, and back off of it and call that particular plan and tactic off.
"He poisoned our water supply, burned our crops and delivered a plague unto our houses!"

"He did?"

"No, but are we just going to wait around until he does?!"

[Devonix]

Critics are only useful if their interests align with yours. I know I have almosylt nothing in common with the media consensus on grimdark versus banter, I love grimderp movies and find the snark of Marvel increasingly dull. I also thought the best marvel movie was Winter Soldier and the worst was Ragnorak.

Which isn't to say those critics are wrong, just that I don't enjoy the same things they do.

I look at film critics the same way I look at any art critic or food critic. Not to tell me if a thing is good or bad, but WHY it's good or bad. There are subjects I know about and can speak critically on, and there are things where I don't know how to articulate what makes a thing good. That's what critics are for.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I don't mean to pile on about the thing going on here.

But the mode of thinking on display here and inability to actually consider evidence presented on a topic one presumably cares about is a rather fascinating thing to see in action. It's so alien a mode of thought to me that I sometimes have a hard time remembering it even exists.

I appreciate having a reminder of such things from time to time. In an odd way, I think it helps me be a little less gung-ho about my general level of knowledge and understanding.

[The Glyphstone]

I don't mean to pile on about the thing going on here.

But the mode of thinking on display here and inability to actually consider evidence presented on a topic one presumably cares about is a rather fascinating thing to see in action. It's so alien a mode of thought to me that I sometimes have a hard time remembering it even exists.

I appreciate having a reminder of such things from time to time. In an odd way, I think it helps me be a little less gung-ho about my general level of knowledge and understanding.

Considering how many conspiracy theories revolve around aliens of some kind, this is either a fantastic stealth pun or an even more fantastic unintentional pun.

[Lvl45DM!]

You know, just for arguments sake,I work for a cinema in Australia, and could buy Star Wars 7 tickets in mid-November, bought Alita tickets 2 weeks before it came out but for the Green Book or Hunt for the Wilderpeople, i had to wait til Monday, the week of.

Its endemic to the industry.

The problem with raising hell against them is that regardless of the actual outcome, people will post-hoc justify their outrage. If it does change, then no amount of internal memos and statements to the press will convince the mob that it wasn't due entirely to their outrage, further justifying the conspiracy-think and mob mentality.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Considering how many conspiracy theories revolve around aliens of some kind, this is either a fantastic stealth pun or an even more fantastic unintentional pun.

I'd like to acknowledge this statement was made by someone, while also not unmasking which scenario is accurate. That's what writers do, right?

[Metahuman1]

I think this one would actually go like this: There were no shenanigans, they go about what they were going to do, some people don't learn about or refuse to believe the lack of shenanigans and take action on their incorrect beliefs, and the movie's sales are decreased for no good reason. That may not be a big harm, and the companies affected can afford to take it, but it's still harm.

Meanwhile, multiple people with no connection to Disney whatsoever are saying it's not shenanigans, with an explanation of how and why, on their own initiative and with supporting evidence - for example, I cited the listing of Us on its opening week coming up with just as little else listed on the same days.

So why not believe them? What's more plausible, that Disney got every single online ticket sales service to go along with a plan that would hurt their own bottom line, in a way that has independent people somehow convinced that it's instead business as usual for the industry, or that it actually is business as usual for the industry?

Regarding the thrust of your first paragraph.

That only hurts the movie, if we assume it's going to be lousy.

Let's recall for a moment a movie that was in a not entirely dissimilar situation before it came out not that long ago. Wonder Woman.

Lot's of people skipped it opening weekend, either cause of stupid theaters not actually connected to the film staff or Warner Bros doing the "All women screenings all weekend!" stunts, and similar forms of pot stirring, or because, in far more cases, they were VERY turned off the DCCU by that point having had two generally crap movies and a third one that was basically entirely forgettable.

Then, the people who did see it got the word out. Both just in there personal circles and on social media. That the movie was MUCH better than any of the other 3 movies and that it hadn't fallen into the pit traps the pot stirrer's had been insisting it was making a point to make a B line for.

And it made more money in it's second weekend, rather than having the expected massive drop off that it's predecessors had. It wound up being VERY successful at the box office in fact.



And Captain Marvel at the end of the day has a lot less to over come with the arguable exception of the lead actress. And even then there was concerns that Gal Gadot was going to be too physically small to be convincing as Princess Of The Amazon's, so even that is somewhat questionable.

If Captain Marvel is just a decent romp that doesn't do what Larson has openly stated in at least one interview it's going to do, which is be a political activist propaganda piece as it's highest priority, than what your looking at having is a repeat. It has a somewhat less than idea opening, the word of mouth get's out, and then it doesn't have a drop off and actually picks up after the opening weekend, and goes on to be a success. Maybe not at the same level as Infinity War, but a success regardless. Hell if it's actually legitimately good and avoids the political problem angle I mentioned, and that turns out to be Larson just blowing hot air, then it might actually be at or close to Black Panther levels of success, given the fact that it is being billed as the lead in to Endgame AND of couse has marvels track record behind it AND would have that word of mouth going for it after the first weekend.


If, however, were getting what Larson has stated were getting, what early showing reviews that can only say how awesome having any woman as a super hero is or how amazing The Cat is suggest were getting and what the first few previews showed us, if that's what's coming, well, then yes. This might hurt it. After all, if that's the case, they'd be expecting an enormous drop off, similar Ironically to what Batman V. Superman had. They pretty much have too make there money opening weekend. And thus, this could hurt it then. Cause it's hitting them during there one window to make money, before anyone's heard anything, and once that's lost and people have heard something, they'll start avoiding it cause they'll have heard the confirmation from those who DO go see it on social media and in there personal circles that it was indeed a bad movie and not to waste money on it.

Of course, THAT, in turn, is only a concern if 1: There really are no shenanigans, and 2: It's a bad movie. Both have to be the case for this scenario to come to pass. If there are shenanigans, then any hurt is legitimate, because no corporation should have the option to force out all the competition to clean up there own mess like this. And if there aren't but it's a junk movie, the only harm, is that its possible didn't get to skate by being a junk movie, and they might have to deal with an accurate image of how well people liked it. Meaning in turn they might have to start toning her back and down in future movies. And if it's a crap movie, honestly, that's really only fair.




As for why not believe them, firstly, I've been burned by Disney's crap before. I expressly do not trust them. Period. Secondly, because as I have explained, there is a window to potentially do something if there are shenanigans, and no real harm if something is done believing there to be shenanigans, only to find there were no shenanigans. And much more potential long term harm if nothing is done and there were.

Think of it like having that Jack, Spare Tire and Tire Iron in your trunk on your car. Most of the time you don't need them, but it's still usually a good idea to have them there and in good working order anyway.

[Divayth Fyr]

Think of it like having that Jack, Spare Tire and Tire Iron in your trunk on your car. Most of the time you don't need them, but it's still usually a good idea to have them there and in good working order anyway.
How does "having stuff you might need in case you catch a flat tire" compare with "go on a witch hunt because someone believes business as usual is actually an ominous plot"?

[Douglas]

As for why not believe them, firstly, I've been burned by Disney's crap before. I expressly do not trust them. Period.
I was referring to the people unassociated with Disney who have explained here repeatedly how and why this is not shenanigans. Why not believe those people?

Seriously, this is just theater scheduling working the same way it's been working for decades. It's a bit more publicly visible than it was 10 or 20 years ago, but that's all.

[Metahuman1]

I was referring to the people unassociated with Disney who have explained here repeatedly how and why this is not shenanigans. Why not believe those people?

Seriously, this is just theater scheduling working the same way it's been working for decades. It's a bit more publicly visible than it was 10 or 20 years ago, but that's all.

If your referring too the 1 Website that was linked as a counter argument, why should I trust that 1 random website and EVERYONE allowed to publish too it isn't shilling for Disney? Particularly one I've never hear of till it just so happens to be cited to defend a movie, that Disney has a whole hell of a lot of allegedly reputable web sites shilling for at the moment?

Or are you referring to the people specifically posting in this thread, many of whom are making it fairly clear they plan to defend the movie no matter what, even as they accuse me of attacking it in a witch hunt no matter what? And perhaps that description of that portion of what your possibly referring too explains why I'm not leaping blindly to trust it either if it is, indeed, the item your referencing. (That and the last 4 times I trusted Playground posters on something being "Good" and "Worth checking out/looking into/going to see/what-have-you.", I got burned HARD. There's a finite number of times in a row that can happen before one begins to distrust that source. )




That said, funny thing.

I am in the habit of putting on pod casts and vlogger/rant/news style youtube videos when I drive too and from places. (The sorts of things one can put on and since the only video is a static image of an avatar or a person talking into a camera, you can position the phone were you can't see the screen and just listen to the audio and loose nothing from the experience.)

And one of the one's I do trust, happened to cover the issue. They are agreeing with the assessment that this is not yet another in a series of under handed stunts by Disney, or at least people within Disney in fairly high positions. That evidently this is relatively normal.

So fine. I was wrong. This particular thing is not shenanigans on the mouses part. If your wondering why I needed it form another source and didn't just take it at the link too the random site or the say so of a few posters here, see above.

[Divayth Fyr]

If your referring too the 1 Website that was linked as a counter argument, why should I trust that 1 random website and EVERYONE allowed to publish too it isn't shilling for Disney?
Well, why should you trust ANYONE with ANYTHING? Once you start arguing things like that, you really make yourself look like a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist. At best :P

[HMS Invincible]

If your referring too the 1 Website that was linked as a counter argument, why should I trust that 1 random website and EVERYONE allowed to publish too it isn't shilling for Disney? Particularly one I've never hear of till it just so happens to be cited to defend a movie, that Disney has a whole hell of a lot of allegedly reputable web sites shilling for at the moment?
Or are you referring to the people specifically posting in this thread, many of whom are making it fairly clear they plan to defend the movie no matter what, even as they accuse me of attacking it in a witch hunt no matter what? And perhaps that description of that portion of what your possibly referring too explains why I'm not leaping blindly to trust it either if it is, indeed, the item your referencing. (That and the last 4 times I trusted Playground posters on something being "Good" and "Worth checking out/looking into/going to see/what-have-you.", I got burned HARD. There's a finite number of times in a row that can happen before one begins to distrust that source. )
That said, funny thing.
I am in the habit of putting on pod casts and vlogger/rant/news style youtube videos when I drive too and from places. (The sorts of things one can put on and since the only video is a static image of an avatar or a person talking into a camera, you can position the phone were you can't see the screen and just listen to the audio and loose nothing from the experience.)
And one of the one's I do trust, happened to cover the issue. They are agreeing with the assessment that this is not yet another in a series of under handed stunts by Disney, or at least people within Disney in fairly high positions. That evidently this is relatively normal.
So fine. I was wrong. This particular thing is not shenanigans on the mouses part. If your wondering why I needed it form another source and didn't just take it at the link too the random site or the say so of a few posters here, see above.
Why don't you share the youtube/podcast of the people you trust. Show us the people you like to listen to and hang around.

[Frozen_Feet]

I just do not get all this angst over a movie that isn't even out yet.

I guess this is what happens when most people never watch any of the dozens of actual political movies, with much more radical statements, that are made each year. So they end up arguing over a superhero origi story. I'd say that' s cute, but it's really just damn annoying.

[Lethologica]

Why don't you share the youtube/podcast of the people you trust. Show us the people you like to listen to and hang around.
Well, with that tone, I can't possibly imagine why someone would be reluctant to share things with the thread. No judgment here!

The thing to do if one doesn't trust the single source linked is to go find some other sources for corroboration, and Meta did that, and that's the end of the story as far as I'm concerned.

[Aotrs Commander]

I guess this is what happens when most people never watch any of the dozens of actual political movies, with much more radical statements, that are made each year. So they end up arguing over a superhero origi story. I'd say that' s cute, but it's really just damn annoying.

Well, in fairness, (at least according to what reviewers I am aware of) those political movies appear to be among the very worst movie of a given year, so and least people want to argue about a movie that, could, in some circumstance (depending on preferences of issue in question) possibly not suck...

Hell, I'd always take even a BAD superhero movie over even a good political one. (Or, personal preference, a drama, western or Art film...)

[Legato Endless]

I just do not get all this angst over a movie that isn't even out yet.

I guess this is what happens when most people never watch any of the dozens of actual political movies, with much more radical statements, that are made each year. So they end up arguing over a superhero origi story. I'd say that' s cute, but it's really just damn annoying.

Take one dash of an exclusionary love of sugary escapism, an anti intellectual loathing of things outside the hard sciences (common to nerds ironically), and you get a general antipathy to basically anything dealing with real world social group interactions as 'pretentious.' But people still get caught up in the undercurrents of such things, so it ends up manifesting chiefly in pop culture debate. Cute is a word. Cloying would be another.

[Lacuna Caster]

I guess this is what happens when most people never watch any of the dozens of actual political movies, with much more radical statements, that are made each year. So they end up arguing over a superhero origin story. I'd say that's cute, but it's really just damn annoying.
Are there... some that you'd care to recommend? My local cinema only shows a couple at a time, so my options tend to be limited.


Take one dash of an exclusionary love of sugary escapism, an anti intellectual loathing of things outside the hard sciences (common to nerds ironically)...
There is a certain strain of antipathy toward intellectual subjects outside the hard sciences, sure, but I'm not sure the social sciences and humanities have been doing much to refute it (https://quillette.com/2018/10/01/the-grievance-studies-scandal-five-academics-respond/).

To some extent, the mere fact the MCU flicks are well-engineered blockbusters makes them a target for contention to a larger extent than smaller movies. It's not a profound observation, but anyone with an anti-feminist agenda can perceive, probably correctly, that superhero flicks are a larger part of the culture wars simply by dint of their ticket sales. I personally agree that the number of female-led MCU movies should ideally be greater than zero and that a correction of that imbalance is pretty overdue, but it's not exactly hard to decipher why it's become a flashpoint.

[Frozen_Feet]

@Aotrs_Commander: I disagree, but then again, I'm the sort of person who is willing to run two miles in the rain to see some French art movie.

@Lacuna Caster: from this year? The Death of Stalin. If you can stand nominal Soviet Russians sounding unforgivable British, at least. Other films I saw this year aren't in wide circulation, so I'll have to find my Helsinki International Film Festival brochure and see if there was anything interesting I missed.

[Lethologica]

There is a certain strain of antipathy toward intellectual subjects outside the hard sciences, sure, but I'm not sure the social sciences and humanities have been doing much to refute it (https://quillette.com/2018/10/01/the-grievance-studies-scandal-five-academics-respond/).
I wouldn't cite that study as evidence of much of anything, much less polemical opining by people leveraging the study to grind their own axes. What they learned is primarily that it is possible to fool peer review, especially if you are trying. This should not surprise anyone who has seen similar circumstances occur in many fields, not just the social sciences and humanities in general, or the particular fields of scholarship the Grievance Studies folks sought to 'expose'. They designed tests they would pass if their hypothesis was true, but not tests they would fail if their hypothesis was false.

[Dienekes]

@Lacuna Caster: from this year? The Death of Stalin. If you can stand nominal Soviet Russians sounding unforgivable British, at least. Other films I saw this year aren't in wide circulation, so I'll have to find my Helsinki International Film Festival brochure and see if there was anything interesting I missed.

Death of Stalin was 2017. Great movie, though. Isaacs as Zhukov stole every scene he was in.

[Frozen_Feet]

Was it? It was in the theaters this year though.

[Dienekes]

Was it? It was in the theaters this year though.

Huh. Having looked it up. Apparently it was released in Britain 6 months before everywhere else. My bad.

[Frozen_Feet]

Also, apparently I'm still in the last year.

[Lemmy]

I'm not invested enough in this to go back and parse your exact wording, so don't take this as personal to you. If you're making the blanket statement that someone is a bad actress, then yes, the fact that you've only seen a small sample of her work strongly diminishes your credibility, much like making a blanket judgment about a chef's ability because a dish was burned, probably by his sous chef. Criticizing a particular meal, or his performance on that particular night supervising his staff, totally legitimate. But in general, the stronger the assertion you want to make, the more knowledge you should have to back it up.I didn't say Brie Larson is a bad actress. I said her performance in the CM trailer is bad. That was what I was referencing when I compared her to a cardboard box.


One should be careful to avoid similar pitfalls; there are a few on this forum who try pretty hard to push the "You disagree because of the SJW agenda" angle as well--it's also an easy go-to tactic of silencing opposing PoVs these days.True. But i didn't use such tactic. I simply disagreed and defended myself when people who know literally nothing about me repeatedly implied I didn't like BL's acting just because she's female.


Apparently, you're not going to take me seriously after this, so I'll try to make a good point before you tune me out, but I think that is a legitimate criticism in some circumstances. For example, I was very disappointed in how Wrinkle in Time turned out, but I think it was fair to say that much of the criticism that the movie would "ruin the book to push the affirmative action agenda"--particularly, the portion of it that started before we even saw the first trailers--was motivated more by prejudice than by legitimate analysis of the movie. Again, because it came from people who literally couldn't have seen the movie yet.

I think some of the criticism has been... deserving of scrutiny in their own right, either because of the history of the person making that criticism, or because it tries way too hard to draw broad conclusions about specific people based on a very small sample of their work. But that doesn't mean I assume that all criticism is so motivated.I know next to nothing about " Wrinkle in Time" or anything surrounding it, so I can't comment on that particular issue... My criticism was against people immediately labeling every criticism of Brie Larson and the Cap. Marvel movie as sexism and then simply dismissing it, despite the fact that various other female-led movies came out recently and didn't have the same reception as Cap Marvel... Including Alita, which is on theaters right now and is generally being praised by audiences (although "professional critics" don't seem to like it very much).

While there will always be some angry chauvinist and angry feminazi blindly attacking or defending any piece of media that comes out, the vast majority of people don't really care about the gender or ethnicity of the main character, as long as they are good characters and/or part of a good story... So if your first reaction to criticism of a property you like is blaming it on bigotry, you should probably honestly re-evaluate the how you deal with criticism and dissenting opinions.

[Magic_Hat]

No way I'm seeing this film in theaters, but since this film comes out in literally days could someone answer the following questions for me (obviously put them in spoilers):

1) How does this film retcon I mean explain...yes explain because this was obviously planned years ago and won't cause any inconsistencies...the fact our title character didn't come to earth during Loki attack on New York or Ultron's invasion or the fact Nick Fury didn't try contacting her before during those events?

2) What's Stan Lee's cameo? I think this and (Rear)End Game are the last two were getting ever.:smallfrown: