Captain Marvel or How Marvel does everything better than everyone else

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

Dreiko:

PsychedelicDiamond:

Here Comes Tomorrow:

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

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

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

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

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

Silentpony:

Johnny Novgorod:

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

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

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

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

CyanCat47:

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

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

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

Where the fuck did this thread go?

erttheking:
Where the fuck did this thread go?

Whatever it was I bet the Jews did it.

CyanCat47:
it feels like the only reason the plot of Guardians 1 happened was that Captain Marvel couldn't spare another 2 minutes to take out Ronans entire fleet there and then.

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

Adam Jensen:

CyanCat47:
it feels like the only reason the plot of Guardians 1 happened was that Captain Marvel couldn't spare another 2 minutes to take out Ronans entire fleet there and then.

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

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

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

Saelune:

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

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

My favorite is the dude that said, and I quote

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

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

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

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

Adam Jensen:

CyanCat47:
it feels like the only reason the plot of Guardians 1 happened was that Captain Marvel couldn't spare another 2 minutes to take out Ronans entire fleet there and then.

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

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

Hawki:

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

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

X: I have an opinion on A.

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

What is that if not dismissal?

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

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

Um, yes? I'm not disputing that.

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

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

X: I don't like A.

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

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

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

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

CyanCat47:
Just got back from watching it, and it was alright. It was nice to see an origin marvel movie that strayed from the formula, but in the process some of the new things they tried out didn't really work very well. While i liked Jude Law's character, the movie's attempt to subvert the traditional rivalry backstory just makes him feel pointless. When Carol says "I have been fighting with a hand tied behind my back the whole time" i was kind of mift. She beat Jude Law in their first fight by using her energy powers, so she is shown as stronger and more important than him from the beginning. If they had merged the supreme intelligence and his character in some way, it might have made for a more effective antagonist, even if it means removing Jude Law from the movie. The final 'fight' between him and Carol just hammers it home further. The movie might subvert a trope by not killing him off or have her fistfight him, but as a result he feels pointless. It may be tiresome for the hero to always fight someone with the same power as them, but Loke, Ironmonger, Bucky Barnes, Killmonger and Quill's dad feel more meaningful when they actually pose a threat. While we are on the subject of other marvel villains, the whole "Without us you are just human" moment worked much better in guardians 2 because the movie took more time to set up character relationships, which this movie has a general problem with.

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

Hawki:

Adam Jensen:

CyanCat47:
it feels like the only reason the plot of Guardians 1 happened was that Captain Marvel couldn't spare another 2 minutes to take out Ronans entire fleet there and then.

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

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

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

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

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

altnameJag:

Saelune:

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

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

My favorite is the dude that said, and I quote

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

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

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

I guess I can see a criticism that black panther portrays wakanda's ethnostate in a light that if a white country portrayed its ethnostate in such a light, it would instantly be offensive and would get people riled up against it, but because it was a black ethnostate is was tolerated disproportionately.

Even when it shows how it is ultimately a bad idea, it does offer the argument for why it might be a good idea and gives it more room to breathe than a lot of people would allow for the white equivalent. I seriously doubt a movie that makes the case for a white ethnostate would receive 3 oscars, even if it ends up going against the concept in the end.

But yeah this topic is all over the place lol.

I thought it was just okay. Nothing special, but don't understand all the hate.

Captain Marvelous:
She beat them enough to force them to retreat, winning with minimum bloodshed. She'll kill more, sure, but not all of them. I hope.

Even if she does, it's apparently for nothing, since the Kree Empire is still alive and well by GotG 1.

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

Dunno, but you could easily have "bad skrulls" do it. Maybe? I know SI is a thing that involves skrulls impersonating characters, but that's about it. But even Talos himself admits that there's blood on his hands, that the skrulls as a race aren't arbitrarily good or evil.

Kenbo Slice:
I thought it was just okay. Nothing special, but don't understand all the hate.

A large portion of the world is sexist against women. This movie stars a strong women, so it pisses people off.

Saelune:

Kenbo Slice:
I thought it was just okay. Nothing special, but don't understand all the hate.

A large portion of the world is sexist against women. This movie stars a strong women, so it pisses people off.

And that's relevant to saying the film is simply okay...how, exactly?

Hawki:

Saelune:

Kenbo Slice:
I thought it was just okay. Nothing special, but don't understand all the hate.

A large portion of the world is sexist against women. This movie stars a strong women, so it pisses people off.

And that's relevant to saying the film is simply okay...how, exactly?

Because it was a question about where the hate stems from and Saelune gave her view on where it might come from.

Adam Jensen:

CyanCat47:
it feels like the only reason the plot of Guardians 1 happened was that Captain Marvel couldn't spare another 2 minutes to take out Ronans entire fleet there and then.

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

As I said, Ronan kills more people in the final battle of Guardians 1 than we see die on screen in this movie and Captain Marvel had already killed two spaceships worth of crew at this point. She is basically letting a terrorist go, knowing that her powers were the only deterrant keeping him from wiping out earth's population just to get to the Skrulls and that he will almost certainly go hunt after the Skrull diaspora somewhere else if she lets him go. Assuming that the MCU follows our calendar which this movie more or less confirms, Ronan would keep on going around the galaxy for almost 20 years after this and was never caught or stopped before the end of Guardians 1. That's why having Ronan in this movie doesn't work, because it makes it look like the hero enabled him to go on this long for no immediately clear or justifiable reason other than a presumed regard for the sanctity of life which Captain marvel never really consistently displays

CyanCat47:

Adam Jensen:

CyanCat47:
it feels like the only reason the plot of Guardians 1 happened was that Captain Marvel couldn't spare another 2 minutes to take out Ronans entire fleet there and then.

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

As I said, Ronan kills more people in the final battle of Guardians 1 than we see die on screen in this movie and Captain Marvel had already killed two spaceships worth of crew at this point. She is basically letting a terrorist go, knowing that her powers were the only deterrant keeping him from wiping out earth's population just to get to the Skrulls and that he will almost certainly go hunt after the Skrull diaspora somewhere else if she lets him go. Assuming that the MCU follows our calendar which this movie more or less confirms, Ronan would keep on going around the galaxy for almost 20 years after this and was never caught or stopped before the end of Guardians 1. That's why having Ronan in this movie doesn't work, because it makes it look like the hero enabled him to go on this long for no immediately clear or justifiable reason other than a presumed regard for the sanctity of life which Captain marvel never really consistently displays

They should have had him immediately flee. Like, that is what I was expecting, but instead they just...stared eachother for like, the longest minute ever. Instead it should have been him barely escaping her attack. I loved this movie, but that is definitely a weird moment that should have been different.

Eh. Pretty mediocre for me.

There is not a creative bone in this movie's body. So generic, so average. Which might be unfair, since its basically on the same level as an Ant-man movie and the early Thor movies. But I was expecting more.

Brie Larsen didn't sell her character at all for me (which I suspect is more due to the director, whoever that is). She's quippy, aaaaaand that's it. What they tried to do with her motivations was poorly executed. Her powers are a bore, and never really explained eithe (are we just gonna drop spoilers btw?).

Speaking of her powers, the action in this movie kinda sucked. None of the tightly choreographed fist fights of the Captain America movies, and none of the visually interesting spectacle of Thor/Doctor Strange/GotG. No cool factor like with the Iron Man armor either. Entertaining action is the least I expect from a Marvel movie, and Cap Marvs couldn't deliver.

I want to see what decent directors (no disrespect to the directors of this movie, but I really have no idea who they are) can do with her character and her abilities.

Lastly, FUCK that last part with Fury. That's some stupid ass fucking shit.

Captain Marvel looks okay, but I don't have much interest in seeing it. The "controversy" (if you can call it that) is of course, is stupid as always and film should live or die on its own merits. Captain Marvel is going to make money regardless anyway, and I don't need to see it to understand the next Avengers movie. For the record I like new Star Wars films and Man of Steel (Batman V. Superman I am more mixed, but thought it was average). Star Trek, old or new, whether they be the movies or the shows I never cared for at all. The new Star Wars films have problems, but they are not that bad, and I say this as a casual SW fan. I feel its another case of people overreacting over minor stuff, yet I will always despise Admiral Po or whatever her name is. I hate that character so much.

Plus, I already saw my woman-kicking-ass movie, Alita. Though all forms of media could use more.

Saelune:

Kenbo Slice:
I thought it was just okay. Nothing special, but don't understand all the hate.

A large portion of the world is sexist against women. This movie stars a strong women, so it pisses people off.

The movie itself wasn't overbearingly feminist (although Just A Girl playing during a fight was corny as fuck).

I still think Brie Larson isn't a good choice for Carol. The movie really only works because of the supporting cast.

A lot of fun. But I will confess that whenever someone said to Danvers "You're too emotional, you let your emotions get the better of you" I had to think "...does she?"
Like, even when she's deliberately shed the Kree stoic warrior facade she still seems a bit...one note. Kind of reminded me of any time Sarah Michelle Gellar was trying to be evil in Buffy

Kenbo Slice:

Saelune:

Kenbo Slice:
I thought it was just okay. Nothing special, but don't understand all the hate.

A large portion of the world is sexist against women. This movie stars a strong women, so it pisses people off.

The movie itself wasn't overbearingly feminist (although Just A Girl playing during a fight was corny as fuck).

I still think Brie Larson isn't a good choice for Carol. The movie really only works because of the supporting cast.

I think the actual concern is that it will be Captain Marvel and her alone that will the chosen one to ultimately defeat and kill Thanos.

Samtemdo8:

Kenbo Slice:

Saelune:
A large portion of the world is sexist against women. This movie stars a strong women, so it pisses people off.

The movie itself wasn't overbearingly feminist (although Just A Girl playing during a fight was corny as fuck).

I still think Brie Larson isn't a good choice for Carol. The movie really only works because of the supporting cast.

I think the actual concern is that it will be Captain Marvel and her alone that will the chosen one to ultimately defeat and kill Thanos.

I don't think anybody's gonna "kill" Thanos. He's gonna die from tapping into too much power or some blameless bullshit like every other MCU villain. Disney can't have their heroes kill the villain. Ever notice how all the MCU baddies either kill each other or otherwise kill themselves?

Samtemdo8:

Kenbo Slice:

Saelune:
A large portion of the world is sexist against women. This movie stars a strong women, so it pisses people off.

The movie itself wasn't overbearingly feminist (although Just A Girl playing during a fight was corny as fuck).

I still think Brie Larson isn't a good choice for Carol. The movie really only works because of the supporting cast.

I think the actual concern is that it will be Captain Marvel and her alone that will the chosen one to ultimately defeat and kill Thanos.

I see no reason why. Even the previous God Avenger Thor wielding a specifically designed Thanos Killer 5000 couldn't do it. Avengers, Ultron, Civil War, and Infinity War has shown pretty well they're good at giving their powerful members side tasks or limitations to make fights and plots interesting enough, why would they stop now?

undeadsuitor:

Samtemdo8:

Kenbo Slice:

The movie itself wasn't overbearingly feminist (although Just A Girl playing during a fight was corny as fuck).

I still think Brie Larson isn't a good choice for Carol. The movie really only works because of the supporting cast.

I think the actual concern is that it will be Captain Marvel and her alone that will the chosen one to ultimately defeat and kill Thanos.

I see no reason why.

I believe it is because her detractors think she does not deserve to beat Thanos because otherwise what was the point in developing Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Spiderman, Black Panther, if its this "Feminist Icon" that saves the day in the end, and she only just appeared this year?

Samtemdo8:

undeadsuitor:

Samtemdo8:

I think the actual concern is that it will be Captain Marvel and her alone that will the chosen one to ultimately defeat and kill Thanos.

I see no reason why.

I believe it is because her detractors think she does not deserve to beat Thanos because otherwise what was the point in developing Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Spiderman, Black Panther, if its this "Feminist Icon" that saves the day in the end, and she only just appeared this year?

It's a 3 hour movie, but somehow Captain Marvel beats Thanos singlehandedly? Or maybe she makes some new friends and helps them with a problem.

These guys are calling for a sin bin on Captain Marvel because she's had no movies. So are we not going to get new superheroes now?

trunkage:

Samtemdo8:

undeadsuitor:

I see no reason why.

I believe it is because her detractors think she does not deserve to beat Thanos because otherwise what was the point in developing Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Spiderman, Black Panther, if its this "Feminist Icon" that saves the day in the end, and she only just appeared this year?

It's a 3 hour movie, but somehow Captain Marvel beats Thanos singlehandedly? Or maybe she makes some new friends and helps them with a problem.

These guys are calling for a sin bin on Captain Marvel because she's had no movies. So are we not going to get new superheroes now?

I am merely just speaking about my impression about all this controversy regarding Captain Marvel combined with my experience of all these topics about "Feminist-Mary Sues"

Dreiko:

trunkage:

Dreiko:

She said something along the lines of the movie not being made for white men while being smug and shaking her head in an annoying angle or some such.

I'll be glad to prove her wrong! :P

She later was apparently pressured by her publicist into walking these comments back somewhat with a tepid "I just wanna include more people not restrict some" and whatnot platitude. Though all that stuff is kinda noise when talking about the movie. It's all about the personality of the actress and her politics and whatnot. Completely unimportant stuff when in the context of a fictional story.

The quote is earlier in this thread. Pretty much says, "I want to hear from not just white 40 year old guys." Which, of course, should be offensive to anyone.

Could have she worded it nicer so it doesn't trigger white guys? Sure. Hence her point about not trying to exclude them later.

As a person who is 'targeted' by Larsen? People being offended are just making mountains out of molehills. It's like when you called her smug. Because smug now seems to mean 'I dont like what their saying' rather than a facial expression.

I'm not entirely certain that is the same quote I had in mind but either way it's less about facial expression and more about uhh, neck movement, I guess?

Point mainly is that this is just the actress' own personality that's abrasive and it has little to do with the movie. Sure, it was in connection to the movie, but it's unfair to blame the movie that has a ton of people working on it cause this one actress behaves the way she does. I can see blaming her all you want but you can't apply her flaws to the fictional world of the movie or even to the character that she portrays because that world is governed by the writers so she can say she hates white men or whatever but if the writer writes her into a neonazi concubine in the next one her character will morph into that irrespective of whatever her feelings on white men are. Even if she were to refuse to play that character and they got someone else to do it it'd still be the same character.

Separate art from the artist and judge works in a vacuum, that's the only fair approach.

When I heard the quote, I didn't think it was abrasive at all, I just saw someone trying to speak to their audience. But after someone pointing it out, I can understand their point of view.

Now, let's take an example of something that could equally be seen as abrasive around the same topic. This is my Prime Minister's speech on International Women's Day;

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/svgscomoiwdspeech0903/video/a12afbf8f2ef5cb0c790f4be50066577

Sorry, haven't found a clip without commentary on it that isn't part of some news corporation. TLDR: we aren't going to push men down to uplift women. Which hasn't been what any Feminist has said. It also implies that women just need to wait their turn before their allowed in, which is pretty much a summary of Patriarchy (which is a problem with a system and not a targeting of actual people unless they are corrupting the system.)

So, he's speaking to his audience (as a conservative). Don't worry, men. Women wont take your jobs. But trying to uplift women. This too could be said much better. I personally can see what he's trying to say and wont call him a sexist because he's made a gaffe. I don't hold Larsen, because who was commenting specifically on her movie, because she said a gaffe. I'll try to listen to what she meant, especially since she tried to clarify it.

Samtemdo8:

undeadsuitor:

Samtemdo8:

I think the actual concern is that it will be Captain Marvel and her alone that will the chosen one to ultimately defeat and kill Thanos.

I see no reason why.

I believe it is because her detractors think she does not deserve to beat Thanos because otherwise what was the point in developing Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Spiderman, Black Panther, if its this "Feminist Icon" that saves the day in the end, and she only just appeared this year?

Well the real reason is because the people complaining are dirt stupid but I appreciate the earnest attempt to empathize with them

Johnny Novgorod:

Samtemdo8:

Kenbo Slice:

The movie itself wasn't overbearingly feminist (although Just A Girl playing during a fight was corny as fuck).

I still think Brie Larson isn't a good choice for Carol. The movie really only works because of the supporting cast.

I think the actual concern is that it will be Captain Marvel and her alone that will the chosen one to ultimately defeat and kill Thanos.

I don't think anybody's gonna "kill" Thanos. He's gonna die from tapping into too much power or some blameless bullshit like every other MCU villain. Disney can't have their heroes kill the villain. Ever notice how all the MCU baddies either kill each other or otherwise kill themselves?

Thanos is traditionally the architect of his own defeat so it would be entierly within keeping of his character.

Kenbo Slice:

Saelune:

Kenbo Slice:
I thought it was just okay. Nothing special, but don't understand all the hate.

A large portion of the world is sexist against women. This movie stars a strong women, so it pisses people off.

The movie itself wasn't overbearingly feminist (although Just A Girl playing during a fight was corny as fuck).

I still think Brie Larson isn't a good choice for Carol. The movie really only works because of the supporting cast.

Man that made me giggle and think "Okay guys, there is such a thing as too on the nose"

I saw this last night and then saw Alita (again) after it. Captain Marvel is fine; nothing groudbreaking or game changing.

trunkage:
So are we not going to get new superheroes now?

The MCU's getting the Eternals, possibly Shang-Chi, and possibly Blade, in addition to movies with pre-existing characters.

trunkage:

Dreiko:

trunkage:
The quote is earlier in this thread. Pretty much says, "I want to hear from not just white 40 year old guys." Which, of course, should be offensive to anyone.

Could have she worded it nicer so it doesn't trigger white guys? Sure. Hence her point about not trying to exclude them later.

As a person who is 'targeted' by Larsen? People being offended are just making mountains out of molehills. It's like when you called her smug. Because smug now seems to mean 'I dont like what their saying' rather than a facial expression.

I'm not entirely certain that is the same quote I had in mind but either way it's less about facial expression and more about uhh, neck movement, I guess?

Point mainly is that this is just the actress' own personality that's abrasive and it has little to do with the movie. Sure, it was in connection to the movie, but it's unfair to blame the movie that has a ton of people working on it cause this one actress behaves the way she does. I can see blaming her all you want but you can't apply her flaws to the fictional world of the movie or even to the character that she portrays because that world is governed by the writers so she can say she hates white men or whatever but if the writer writes her into a neonazi concubine in the next one her character will morph into that irrespective of whatever her feelings on white men are. Even if she were to refuse to play that character and they got someone else to do it it'd still be the same character.

Separate art from the artist and judge works in a vacuum, that's the only fair approach.

When I heard the quote, I didn't think it was abrasive at all, I just saw someone trying to speak to their audience. But after someone pointing it out, I can understand their point of view.

Now, let's take an example of something that could equally be seen as abrasive around the same topic. This is my Prime Minister's speech on International Women's Day;

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/svgscomoiwdspeech0903/video/a12afbf8f2ef5cb0c790f4be50066577

Sorry, haven't found a clip without commentary on it that isn't part of some news corporation. TLDR: we aren't going to push men down to uplift women. Which hasn't been what any Feminist has said. It also implies that women just need to wait their turn before their allowed in, which is pretty much a summary of Patriarchy (which is a problem with a system and not a targeting of actual people unless they are corrupting the system.)

So, he's speaking to his audience (as a conservative). Don't worry, men. Women wont take your jobs. But trying to uplift women. This too could be said much better. I personally can see what he's trying to say and wont call him a sexist because he's made a gaffe. I don't hold Larsen, because who was commenting specifically on her movie, because she said a gaffe. I'll try to listen to what she meant, especially since she tried to clarify it.

Isn't this what Emma Watson said in her feminist speech a few years back, about how feminism is often associated with man-hating (implying that it's associated with wanting to push men down to promote women basically) and how to strive to undo that and so on.

I don't think it's quite the same level as calling your core audience out as being entitled, just because they have been the main pillars that supports your industry (how can you even be entitled for expecting something out of a fandom you created and supported for deacdes). That one is a gaffe that needed clarification while the other is a real thing that's really contemplated out there and needs addressing.

But the "wait your turn" thing is interesting. It's certainly not right that that's the case whenever it is. I just don't see a cure to it that's not significantly worse than the disease. I think you need to be careful not conflating someone not liking how you fix women having to wait their turn with them wanting women to never get their turn. One does not necessarily show the presence of the other.

Isn't it better if everyone rises more overall but women still fail to fully catch up than if women caught up but the things we had to do to allow them means there's less overall progress so everyone's comparatively worse off despite there being equality. This is what I think the PM was trying to illustrate in that video.

Dreiko:

I guess I can see a criticism that black panther portrays wakanda's ethnostate in a light that if a white country portrayed its ethnostate in such a light, it would instantly be offensive and would get people riled up against it, but because it was a black ethnostate is was tolerated disproportionately.

Even when it shows how it is ultimately a bad idea, it does offer the argument for why it might be a good idea and gives it more room to breathe than a lot of people would allow for the white equivalent. I seriously doubt a movie that makes the case for a white ethnostate would receive 3 oscars, even if it ends up going against the concept in the end.

But yeah this topic is all over the place lol.

BLACK PANTHER DOES NOT PORTRAY WAKANDA'S ISOLATIONIST STATE AS ANYTHING BESIDES CAUSING BAD SHIT. THAT IS LITERALLY THE POINT OF THE MOVIE. IT IS LITERALLY TEXT.

The only way Wakanda is more tolerated is because our cultural zeitgeist *knows* that an all-White ethnostate is A Bad Thing right out the gate. Black Panther argues that ethnistates are bad regardless of race.

It would be like saying A Christmas Carol could make an argument for why Scrooge was right to be a miser. (Another argument these galaxy brains occasionally attempt)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here