Captain Marvel (2019)

pjohnson

Calhoun wrote: »

That is one dark dark story line.

Thats the darkest "family" moment but my favourite family has to be Shatterstar "fathering" Longshot who fathers Shatterstar :pac:

Calhoun

I don't see marvel making these storlines into films lol, none of them are PG13.

The White Wolf

I would have thought most fans know what's going on in that they're blowing Danvers up to suit that absence of a female lead. That's grand with me as long as the film works.

martingriff

iguana wrote: »

There is nothing particularly controversial for Carol. The problem if there is one is that Marvel are trying to pass her off as their equivalent to Wonder Woman, she isn't. DC's most consistently popular publications throughout the decades have been single hero series with Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman as their 'holy trinity.' Marvel's most consistently popular publications, with the exception of Spider-man have been teams. Even Wolverine, is first and foremost an X-man. They don't have their version of Wonder Woman because all of their most popular female heroes are on mainly teams. Even when they have their own solo run, their main association is with a team or else they just aren't popular enough to have crossed into pop culture.

And that's massively compounded by the fact that for most of the MCU's history other film companies have held the rights to nearly all of their most popular characters. For most of Marvel's history it's most popular female characters and those with the most prominent in comic universe roles, would have been X-Men Storm and Jean Grey, with Fox having their rights. An argument could also be made for Sue Storm, the Invisible Woman, who has a sort of 'world's sweetheart' and 'mom' role in the comics hero community. But the Fantastic Four aren't especially popular in general culture and Fox also controlled the rights. Other female characters who may have had the 'panache' or cultural recognition to be pushed as a type of Marvel Wonder Woman, nearly all had rights issues attached, any mutant character was out (Scarlet Witch's whole back story was changed in incredibly stupid ways to get her into the MCU). Spider-woman, Black Cat, Silver Sable, would be Sony film properties. She-Hulk can probably appear in an ensemble but any solo movie rights would belong Universal. I also doubt Marvel wanted to push a female hero derived from a more popular male hero as the main woman of the MCU. Elektra has quite the stink attached to her, thanks to what was the first solo female Marvel movie. Jessica Jones would not suit the tone of the MCU movies.

So that mainly left female Avengers and Inhumans, and Avengers make a lot more sense. Wasp as a founding member would be the obvious choice but I believe Marvel were (understandably) very, very wary of having potentially ridiculously powered heroes like her and Ant-man head up their film franchise. It's why Ant-man came after Phase One and is heavily comedic. I suspect the choice of Carol Danvers came from the 2005 House of M crossover event. In that event Scarlet Witch eliminated natural mutations from earth's history, so the world only had non-mutant heroes (and villains). In this world Ms Marvel was the world's most popular hero and once the event ended Carol went back to the mostly normal Marvel comics universe with the memories of having been so popular. That led to her pushing herself more to the fore. She's been around the Marvel universe for a long time, she's well known in the comics as she's she's had solo runs, she's been an Avenger, a secondary X-men and Wolverine character and a Star Jammer. She has a legacy hero in Kamala Khan, who is for some reason extremely popular. Her power is connected to the Kree and in her Binary persona she was an absolute powerhouse and the movie certainly seems to be planning to tap that.

It makes sense that she's been chosen but she was almost certainly only chosen because of how tied Marvel's hands were by their rights sell off. (Though if Marvel had free reign when creating the MCU Spider-man and the X-men would have probably been their main choices, not the Avengers.) And she absolutely doesn't have a status anything like a Marvel version of Wonder Woman.

I always thought she was akin to superman in power. I have no idea where I got that though

Sad Professor

This is gross.

https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/1101751399459799041

pixelburp

Boilerplate stuff by the looks of it; wouldn't be the first Hollywood film to have a marketing tie in or logistical cooperation with the US military. Still feels a little distasteful every time I see these sort of things mind you...

Sad Professor

True but recruiting teenage girls via a feminist superhero movie seems new, at least for the US military. I'm sure the IDF found some way to leverage Gal Gadot's role in Wonder Woman.

Mitch Connor

Sad Professor wrote: »

True but recruiting teenage girls via a feminist superhero movie seems new, at least for the US military. I'm sure the IDF found some way to leverage Gal Gadot's role in Wonder Woman.

Why not inspire girls to join the military, an historically male dominated (to a massive degree) profession? Especially in America where service is synonymous was patriotism.

Sad Professor

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Why not inspire girls to join the military, an historically male dominated (to a massive degree) profession? Especially in America where service is synonymous was patriotism.

Personally I don't believe the problems women face in the world today will be solved by having more female drone bombers, and if that's what feminism is now then I don't support it. But as much I dislike it, the US military using Larson/Captain Marvel in their propaganda won't affect my view of the movie. I grew up watching Top Gun after all.

iguana

pixelburp wrote: »

Boilerplate stuff by the looks of it; wouldn't be the first Hollywood film to have a marketing tie in or logistical cooperation with the US military. Still feels a little distasteful every time I see these sort of things mind you...

I feel like that. I kind of stopped watching Honest Trailers because of their military sponsorship. It wasn't a conscious decision but I didn't like it and fell out of the habit of watching the new ones every Tuesday because of it. I don't particularly want my son exposed to them either. It just feels icky.

iguana

martingriff wrote: »

I always thought she was akin to superman in power. I have no idea where I got that though

Carol's powers have varied quite a bit over the decades. (So have Superman's tbh, though not as much.) Her most consistent powerset is flight, strength, invulnerability (to illness and magic as well as kinetic power - but not the touch of a southern mutant) and she can manage fairly indefinitely in the vacuum of space. As Binary she was fairly god like and could fly at the speed of light and channel the power of a white hole with surgical precision. She's since lost that power level (it's not feasible for a character to have that kind of power on an ongoing basis as you'll run out of stories to tell) but can absorb energy up to no known limit, store it and channel it back at will. the more power she stores, the more powerful she is. And when writers remember it, she also has her own version of 'spidey-sense.'

In all honesty, I'd say she's been one of the more inconsistently written Marvel characters. She's just sort of been there for a lot of her history and her most significant story up until House of M was her history with Rouge and even then it was how her memories and personality affected Rouge that was the more explored aspect. The way that her value and importance was most consistently shown was, imo, Wolverine's unwavering appreciation of her and their implied backstory as some sort of friend and comrade in arms. (I believe these stories are currently being published). The fact that the House of M event put her as the world's most popular hero was done specifically because it was unexpected. She was picked because she theoretically could have had that role but very, very much didn't.

Calhoun

Do you guys think they will do cross overs to the X-Men ? I'm kinda getting conflicting information from what I can see online about what universe they inhabit ect.

I am assuming for the MCU they are separate.

Baggly

Calhoun wrote:

I am assuming for the MCU they are separate.

I'm thinking they could do a house of m in reverse.

Some catastrophe with the reality stone brings them into existence.

Mitch Connor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Personally I don't believe the problems women face in the world today will be solved by having more female drone bombers, and if that's what feminism is now then I don't support it. But as much I dislike it, the US military using Larson/Captain Marvel in their propaganda won't affect my view of the movie. I grew up watching Top Gun after all.

It's not about just more bombers as you tritely put.

It's about girls being inspired, welcomed and treated equally in life - where no activity or profession is considered beyond their abilities.

It's about putting female faces on professions historically seen as a male job: army man, fireman, police man etc.

The problems women face will be solved by being treated equally, fairly and with respect.

Calhoun

Pter wrote: »

I'm thinking they could do a house of m in reverse.

Some catastrophe with the reality stone brings them into existence.

That would be pretty cool, i find it fascinating how different the world the operate in treats them.

The MCU there seems to be a level of reverence for them, although as we say with Iron man 3 they start to take not of the damage they can cause.

X-men world it seems to be like "burn the witch".

iguana

Calhoun wrote: »

Do you guys think they will do cross overs to the X-Men ? I'm kinda getting conflicting information from what I can see online about what universe they inhabit ect.

I am assuming for the MCU they are separate.

Now that the Disney/Fox buyout is underway I assume that the X-men and FF will be integrated into the MCU as Spidey has been. The X-men (and Spider-man) have generally been Marvel's most consistently popular books. It's the reason why Sony and Fox bought the rights to them. Disney will want to cash in on that as best they can. Running a shared movie and tv universe is difficult and gets harder and harder as it grows but I suspect Disney will try to keep it up as much as they can. I think the MCU's popularity has far, far exceeded their initial expectations and it makes a lot of sense to re-introduce the X-men as part of that rather than set them up in competition with themselves.

For the FF, I like the idea I've read of having them as a 1960s period piece. I'm not sure how it will work but I think the MCU has been at it's best since it moved into having fun with different genre inspired takes on each movie rather than just a blandish superhero story. The FF as a Mad Men meets (OG) Lost in Space/Time Tunnel/anything by Irwin Allen style series could be a lot of fun.

Bacchus

iguana wrote: »

For the FF, I like the idea I've read of having them as a 1960s period piece. I'm not sure how it will work but I think the MCU has been at it's best since it moved into having fun with different genre inspired takes on each movie rather than just a blandish superhero story. The FF as a Mad Men meets (OG) Lost in Space/Time Tunnel/anything by Irwin Allen style series could be a lot of fun.

That would be fun but I can only see FF being lined up as the natural replacement for Iron Man as the the franchise leading brand name. Iron Man is going to leave a genius sized hole and Reed Richard's will slot in there. FF are the perfect launch pad for some great Marvel villains too. Also I wanna see Thing and Hulk meet/fight

Baggly

iguana wrote:

For the FF, I like the idea I've read of having them as a 1960s period piece. I'm not sure how it will work but I think the MCU has been at it's best since it moved into having fun with different genre inspired takes on each movie rather than just a blandish superhero story. The FF as a Mad Men meets (OG) Lost in Space/Time Tunnel/anything by Irwin Allen style series could be a lot of fun.

Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to?

branie2

I'm going to see it next weekend.

martingriff

Calhoun wrote: »

Do you guys think they will do cross overs to the X-Men ? I'm kinda getting conflicting information from what I can see online about what universe they inhabit ect.

I am assuming for the MCU they are separate.

I say they will and I think they have insinuated there are characters we can not talk about we would love in a film. As the deal is not done (heard before comic con) they can not talk about any of it

The Black Oil

The extent to which special forces have been propagandised by the Pengaton is more problematic, imo.

pixelburp

iguana wrote: »

I feel like that. I kind of stopped watching Honest Trailers because of their military sponsorship. It wasn't a conscious decision but I didn't like it and fell out of the habit of watching the new ones every Tuesday because of it. I don't particularly want my son exposed to them either. It just feels icky.

Wait, what? I uh, use a chrome extension so a bit oblivious to ads (feeling a bit guilty about that, especially for some of the more interesting, nontrivial channels i follow ), but if Honest Trailers are military sponsored I'd definitely unsubscribe

Sonics2k

pixelburp wrote: »

Wait, what? I uh, use a chrome extension so a bit oblivious to ads (feeling a bit guilty about that, especially for some of the more interesting, nontrivial channels i follow ), but if Honest Trailers are military sponsored I'd definitely unsubscribe

Yup, it's not an automated ad, rather a scripted one the presenter says.

What's kinda ironic is that a couple of years ago they made an episode about Transformers and joked about it being sponsored by the US Army.

iguana

Yup not an ad, Epic Voice Guy says it as part of the trailer. I think Screen Rant are aware a high proportion of their viewers don’t see ads and negotiated a higher sponsorship fee by making the ad part of the video itself. It just feels seriously distasteful.

pixelburp

Huh, I never clocked it, I think I just automatically, subconsciously filter out the sponsor pitches (like the inevitable Squarespace pitch that seems to be at the end of every film critic podcast I watch).

Still, to hell with US army tie ins. Time to unsubscribe. Honest Trailers had kinda lost its mojo anyway and the rest of that channel was a bit poor anyway...

Sad Professor

Embargo is up and I'm seeing some rather unenthusiastic reviews.

I haven't looked at Twitter yet, but I can imagine...

Mickeroo

91% on RT after 68 reviews. Most of he blurbs for the "fresh" ones I'm seeing read like 3 star rather than 4 or 5 star reviews. The word "solid" is being used a lot.

Calhoun

Mickeroo wrote: »

91% on RT after 68 reviews. Most of he blurbs for the "fresh" ones I'm seeing read like 3 star rather than 4 or 5 star reviews. The word "solid" is being used a lot.

Isn't that good or what's it mean ?

Seen some interviews last week from SLJ, got very excited as looks like there is a good Nick Fury origin story.

pixelburp

Yeah, I mean it's a MCU film, I'd have been genuinely surprised if this was less than 'solid'; say what you will about the relative poor quality of films like Thor: Dark World, even as the MCU's worst film it's still not beyond awful.

The White Wolf

I skimmed RT and it looks like a solid footing. Endgame will probably have more of a say in how Larson is ultimately positioned to carry things forward.

Have to love the likes of Campea though. Talking out both sides of his mouth as usual.