I saw Captain Marvel today and I loved it, I have no idea where people get the whole feminist stuff from, maybe they're just too sensitive.

And MCU Carol Danvers is pretty awesome, I hope she's the one to defeat Thanos.

Not to prove a point or anything, just because it makes sense as she's the most powerful. Though of course there's always Thor.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but Marvel has been following a pretty standard formula so far for the team up movies. The central Avengers cast get most of the character development focus, while the extraneous avengers are mainly there for rule of cool and to highlight the emotional conflicts undertaken by the main chars.

As we've now lost 80% of our extraneous Avengers, the screen time split is going to be quite a bit smaller than Infinity War for a good portion of Endgame. For this portion, I expect CM and Ant-Man will serve roughly the same combined purpose as T'Challa, Falcon, Dr.Strange, Spidey, the Guardians, SW/Quicksilver, and Vision did in Ultron, Civil War, and IW. Mostly there for the cool factor, to set up scenes for Cap, Tony, and Thor, and to make the big fights 'bigger'. Not in the background as you put it, but not the heart of the film either.

Like, I highly doubt she'll be the one to single-handedly asspull a Thanos 'defeat' (if he is in any way conventionally defeated). It would just feel cheap, and I'm sure Marvel is aware of that. Sure, she is basically a walking Infinity Stone, putting her above Thor in pure power-levels, so I'm sure she'll play a significant roll in the team struggle, but that's probably it.

Spoiler

Given A) the damage to the guantlet post snap, B) CM's new origin of absorbed Tesseract energy, and C) her comic book origin of being able to absorb potentially limitless amounts of power, I have the sneaking suspicion that Tony/Banner will come up with some plan to use CM as a new receptacle to house all the Infinity Stones, and thus turn back time / undo the snap. After this happens, she could suffer the same effects as the guantlet did, and be pretty badly wounded, thus making her sit out the final confrontation (if they decide to go for a big battle type of thing).

 

Exactly this. I suppose one could see her whole heroic determination montage where she fails, gets told to quit, and then gets right back up and tries again as some kind of feminist message. But ... well I mean that was pretty much exactly what Captain America's whole thing was in his origin movie. Determination and refusing to give up no matter how bad things get is such an iconic trait for an action protagonist that it's practically baked in.

 

It's nice and all that the movie basically just did what other movies did, but when your main actress tells people that this is a feminist movie with a feminist message then guess what? The messages being pushed forward aren't just your traditional hero story, but a feminist hero story.
--- Post automerged ---

Having a character randomly show up in one movie before the final fight and then having that character take down the big bad essentially shits on all the other characters that have been built up until this point.

How often have we complained about OC's stealing the spotlight? How often have we complained about Harry's massive random powerups?

It's bad writing and we, on this site, recognize that usually.

 

Two of the three spots I mentioned are probably being called out for being 'feminist' by the anti-sjw crowd mainly because it features douchey guys being douchey in an irrefutably sexist manner. Flashback guy tells her 'hurdur they call it a cockpit for a reason hurdur' - boom she blows up the monitor mid-line. Bike guy tries to pick her up and asks her to 'give him a smile, sweetheart' or something like that. She doesn't bat an eye and then nonchalantly steals his bike.

Both moments had me chuckling with enjoyment, but I can see how someone would find that to be a wink and a nudge toward 'fuck yeah girl-power' if you went into the movie with preconceptions of the movie being feminist.

Other than that though, yeah, I don't see it at all.

 

You are all silly.

If Marvel wanted a female-led MCU feature, this was the perfect time to give Widow an origin story--this would also feature Hawkeye, giving those characters their own standalone film, as they're the only OG Avengers who don't have one, to flesh them out before what's likely to be their last big Avengers team up, given that Phase 4 is shaping up to lean towards power levels that frankly make non-metahumans obsolete. Leave the OG 6 to bathe in the glory of IW & Endgame, and then you could bring in CM in Phase 4, where she will--I'm guessing--be more prominently featured, along with Scarlet Witch and Spidey. This is such a perfect formula to handle the handover to the new kids on the block that I'm sure it must have been discused at Marvel. They wanted Carol Danvers in the Thanos arc now. We'll see why she'll be there.

The feminist angle isn't about the film itself. It's exactly about the politicization of entertainment which has been much bemoaned itt. Larson made a point to dunk on movie critics because too many of them are white men for her taste. She doesn't need a 40 year old dude telling her shit about A Wrinkle In Time because it wasn't made for him. That's fine. The pushback happened because the same people who express those views ("get out of my feminist space, white man") demand to be heard when it's about Fast and Furious and similar movies (also video games etc)--entertainment made for guys, where cars are fast and women are supermodel hot. Then the progressives make guys feel bad for enjoying those movies because they feature women as eye candy and it fuels toxic masculinity. There's no problem with making a movie for women. The problem is when they then tell guys that they shouldn't enjoy their movies because [insert feminist talking point].

I recognize that most people (even on DLP) will dismiss this as Just Neckbeard Things. Neckbeards will be fine if you just leave them the fuck alone. Tiddies in movies/video games don't equal violence against women. I'm the kind of shitlord Brie Larson means when she sneers about white men. I'm frankly sick of being told that I'm a misogynist because I think The Last Jedi was a bad movie.

This got ranty. Sorry for that, I'm done.

 

This makes about as much sense to me as the SJWs who shit on delicious, tasty Chick-fil-a because of the owner's vague homophobia. Basically, applying a label where it doesn't belong. 'Bigot Chicken' is the common term they use, I believe. And if you eat at Chick-fil-a and consume this bigot chicken, you too are obviously a bigot.

If you want to say the owner itself is a bigot, go right ahead. He is. But the chicken itself is not somehow homophobic as result.

If you want to call Brie Larson a feminist, go right ahead. She is. But the movie she's in is not somehow feminist as a result.

 

To be fair, to my understanding, Larson made several public statements trying to claim that the movie is feminist and decrying anyone who disagreed.

 

You completely ignore the framing, the meta, they've created before the release. That's like saying a cigar is always a cigar but since Clinton/Lewinski it became more. Movies always play with the meta because they are the industry whose function is to *sell* it. Nothing which happened from the interview has been random. Like Disney's "Star Wars" was not random either.

 

The argument there is that by eating the Jesus Chicken (which is delicious) you're supporting the homophobic organizations - as the company previously directly donated to those causes. I don't believe the company does donate anymore, but the argument does make sense in that context.

 

You completely missed my point. I agree with you. The film stands on its own merit. Point me to where I said CM was a feminist film. I haven't even seen it. I thought I was clear that the "controversy" is about the cultural context surrounding the film, rather than the film itself.
--- Post automerged ---
@Andrela, you're welcome to your opinion, just please know that you're wrong.

 

Like I said, there's always Thor.

But let's all be realistic here: Thanos won't be defeated with traditional methods. They'll do it with time travel bullshit.

Or better, he'll be defeated but not killed, to let him return in the future, if they need him.

 

Lol, why is time travel bullshit? It would be something new in the MCU as opposed to another traditional punchout. IW was one big punchout. I will be sorely disappointed if defeating Thanos comes down to hitting him hard enough. I just want Tony and Banner to do the thinking parts of the plan while Cap and Thor do the necessary punching along the way.

Given the wild success of Loki's arc in the MCU so far, I think keeping Thanos alive for a possible future hero/villain team up against an even more powerful enemy (Galactus?) is only prudent. Characters switching sides (when done right--see Jamie Lannister) is one of the best things about telling stories.

 

I saw it last night. Wasn't planning to but brother-in-law talked me into going. It's middle-of-the-road for a Marvel movie overall. I enjoyed it more than I was expecting from the trailers, but it's hardly Thor 3 or Guardians level. Slow-motion was way overused, especially in the first ten minutes.

On the music front: she wears a NIN shirt (and in flashbacks one for Appetite for Destruction) and there's posters all over for things like Smashing Pumpkins, but until the credits all the music is the kind of garbage I turned off back in high school (Waterfalls by TLC for example).

Fury definitely wasn't the Shaft expy he is in the earlier movies, but I love Lethal Weapon and Rush Hour, so I found myself liking the buddy-cop relationship between them. Coulson and Jude Law were seriously underused. I also kept getting confused about her friend and daughter; it seemed like they were both being called Monica? Mendelsohn was entertaining.

My biggest fear was that it was going to turn out to be full of anti-male propaganda, especially in light of things she's said doing press for the movie. There wasn't much at all in the actual movie though. If this were a fanfic though, calling her a Mary Sue would definitely fit, and inserting her with the established characters in Endgame and beyond is only going to make that more pronounced.

Overall, a 6.5 I'd say. Don't care about Endgame, but I'm looking forward to Spiderman. Mysterio

 

Time travel almost always ruins stories, because it has unfortunate implications. It's just such a cop-out, like none of the stuff that happened before happened because it can just be undone with time travel. None of the deaths in Infinity War will matter anymore because they'll be undone with time travel. Not that they mattered in the first place, because anyone already knew that they won't last.

Then there's the question: if they undo Infinity War with time travel in Endgame, why not undo a lot more bad things that have happened in previous movies?

Or maybe that's the plan, considering the fact that they'll go back in time to the first Avengers movie, maybe they'll even undo the deaths of Phil Coulson (yes, I've seen Agent of Shield), Quicksilver and other people.

 

Considering this is the last hurrah for many of the original characters...fixing the wrongs and righting the universe would be a nice happy ending for many of them...while also still leaving the universe ripe for the next generation.

 

I hope so. I did loved his character arc in the sequel to the comics infinity gauntlet storyline.

"So what does this make me now? Hero? Villain? Or perhaps just wiser."

 

Holy shit, 455 mln worldwide opening weekend--sixth biggest opening weekend ever. This movie's gonna fly past a billion without a hiccup.