Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Captain Marvel (2019)

Options
1…6791112…21

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    silverharp wrote: »
    its all part of the conversation, why should any opinions be muted? Expressing an opinion about why you don't want to see a movie is as valid as expressing why you do want to see a particular movie.


    Because trolls and malcontents aren't 'part of the conversation'. They're intentionally disruptive and contribute nothing to this 'conversation' except turning it into a cesspit of axes to grind. As said, the 'review bomb' is seen in all sorts of places where fans get it into their heads there's some Great Injustice at play.


  • Options
    #243
    Stone Deaf 4evr
    Registered Users Posts: 7,994 ✭✭✭Stone Deaf 4evr


    The internet was a mistake.


  • Options
    #244
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,503 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    I actually don't recall a huge amount of "political" hype surrounding Wonder Woman but there was definitely significance attached to it being both DC's most successful film and female left.

    The political statement you're referring to with CM though is clearly being driven by the studio ("her" turning to "hero" in the first trailer) therefore why would they have any issue with Brie getting in on the action. In fact my biggest issue with it is that they're acting like it is the first step when it's not and they should have done it long before this. It's ridiculous they've done nearly 20 films and not one has featured a female lead.

    As I said I haven't been following the press tour that much so can you point me to where a specific gender or race has been attacked?

    Gal Gadot doesn't seem to push it, and she seemed to take the high road and avoid it.


  • Options
    #245
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Mitch Connor wrote: »
    But trolling is something that is baselessly sh1tty. It is being negative for the sake of getting a rise, it is an attempt to rip on people for your own amusement etc.

    Yet you seem to be equating speaking politics and trolling as two sides of the coin, equal reactions to the other.

    Unless you think the politics being spoken about is wrong, hurtful, descriminatory... then how is trolling (by nature abusive and destructive) excused by it?

    I can't wait for Marvel, and much like yourself it is nothing to do with politics - I'm looking forward to seeing a Marvel movie, the continuation of the world and characters, the next plot point in the 20+ movie project - but at the same time I will be happy to see a female super hero that young girls can see and be inspired by.

    People downvoting it, sh1tposting it, attacking cast members etc based on the politics of equality.... I just don't see the value of their actions at all. It is pathetic behaviour.

    Attack the movie based on the content of the movie, if it des

    What i am saying is from a commercial perspective you have to always be careful of mixing business and politics. I am not saying what politics good or bad i am just saying any because it always leaves it open for someone to throw stones at you.

    In this case they have capitalized on Brie Larson's known politics and comments she has made to spin up a narrative that she is doesn't like a demographic of her audience.

    I am looking forward to it as a film in itself, as a father of 3 girls it is great that they will have a super hero to look up to and a film series that we all can enjoy but it be great to get to a time where we could just make these films and not have all the fallout around them.

    Maybe it will take a few years for America to settle down because fundamentally this is where most of this stuff happens.


  • Options
    #246
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    I actually don't recall a huge amount of "political" hype surrounding Wonder Woman but there was definitely significance attached to it being both DC's most successful film and female left.

    The political statement you're referring to with CM though is clearly being driven by the studio ("her" turning to "hero" in the first trailer) therefore why would they have any issue with Brie getting in on the action. In fact my biggest issue with it is that they're acting like it is the first step when it's not and they should have done it long before this. It's ridiculous they've done nearly 20 films and not one has featured a female lead.

    As I said I haven't been following the press tour that much so can you point me to where a specific gender or race has been attacked?

    Agreed where is the Black Widow, or a film about Peggy Carter, would have loved to have seen that i know they did the TV series but would have liked to have seen it on the big screen.

    Hopefully now they will start doing a few more origin stories of their existing female members and also introduce new ones.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Because trolls and malcontents aren't 'part of the conversation'. They're intentionally disruptive and contribute nothing to this 'conversation' except turning it into a cesspit of axes to grind. As said, the 'review bomb' is seen in all sorts of places where fans get it into their heads there's some Great Injustice at play.

    very subjective though, who or what a troll is. it would seem in some corners that anyone that disagrees at all with the direction of any franchise is deemed a troll

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #248
    Easy Rod
    Registered Users Posts: 1,876 ✭✭✭Easy Rod


    silverharp wrote: »
    very subjective though, who or what a troll is. it would seem in some corners that anyone that disagrees at all with the direction of any franchise is deemed a troll

    Would it be fair to say that anyone maliciously leaving a bad review of a movie without having seen it is a troll?


  • Options
    #249
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,503 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    Calhoun wrote: »
    Agreed where is the Black Widow, or a film about Peggy Carter, would have loved to have seen that i know they did the TV series but would have liked to have seen it on the big screen.

    Hopefully now they will start doing a few more origin stories of their existing female members and also introduce new ones.

    Second season of agent carter was good but it didn't do well on viewers. Really like the Hedy Lamarr inspired character.
    Easy Rod wrote: »
    Would it be fair to say that anyone maliciously leaving a bad review of a movie without having seen it is a troll?

    It wasn't reviews that they were leaving for this, it's was no on the will you see it thing.


  • Options
    #250
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Varik wrote: »
    Second season of agent carter was good but it didn't do well on viewers. Really like the Hedy Lamarr inspired character.

    Thats a pity its on my list of things to watch.


  • Options
    #251
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    silverharp wrote: »
    very subjective though, who or what a troll is. it would seem in some corners that anyone that disagrees at all with the direction of any franchise is deemed a troll

    Naw, I think you're being a little contrarian if you don't mind me saying; we all KNOW what kind of trolls we're talking about here , and whether it's RottenTomatoes, MetaCritic, Amazon, Steam, or wherever, there a storied history of trolls (née sh*theads) flooding comments threads with the polar opposite of 'conversation'

    And if the trolls want to dump on a film, they'll be perfectly capable of doing so once the film comes out. Only preemptively hate campaigns are stymied.

    Trolls are not that hard to spot - believe me ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,167 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    There’s legitimate criticism of a film or franchise - as someone who’s disliked far more Marvel films than I’ve liked, I’m very sympathetic to thinking this series needs more scrutiny.

    And then there’s trolls abusing a user review system pre-release because the film stars a woman with opinions.

    There is no equivalence here.


  • Options
    #253
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,503 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    There’s legitimate criticism of a film or franchise - as someone who’s disliked far more Marvel films than I’ve liked, I’m very sympathetic to thinking this series needs more scrutiny.

    And then there’s trolls abusing a user review system pre-release because the film stars a woman with opinions.

    There is no equivalence here.

    Not a review system.

    It was a simple will you see it.

    People hating on this probably not going to go see it.


  • Options
    #254
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Easy Rod wrote: »
    Would it be fair to say that anyone maliciously leaving a bad review of a movie without having seen it is a troll?

    sounds a bit hypothetical , you would be a bit of an eejit if you took every on line review seriously or indeed had the time to read them all. An overall audience view has value though and can give a more realistic opinion than the universe of critics who tend to be a bit sheep like on occassion

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #255
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Naw, I think you're being a little contrarian if you don't mind me saying; we all KNOW what kind of trolls we're talking about here , and whether it's RottenTomatoes, MetaCritic, Amazon, Steam, or wherever, there a storied history of trolls (née sh*theads) flooding comments threads with the polar opposite of 'conversation'

    And if the trolls want to dump on a film, they'll be perfectly capable of doing so once the film comes out. Only preemptively hate campaigns are stymied.

    Trolls are not that hard to spot - believe me ;)

    sounds a bit like the terrorist/freedom fighter argument :pac:

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #256
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    silverharp wrote: »
    sounds a bit hypothetical , you would be a bit of an eejit if you took every on line review seriously or indeed had the time to read them all. An overall audience view has value though and can give a more realistic opinion than the universe of critics who tend to be a bit sheep like on occassion

    Unless it's being review bombed, which is precisely we're talking about. You can assign a rating as well as a comment, they come hand in hand & this is what trolls do. 0 star review + a one line rage against SJWs, women, whatever it is that's causing them ire. This is why Rotten Tomatoes are doing what they're doing in the first place.


  • Options
    #257
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    There has definitely been a concerted effort to tank the RT scores. There are probably folks who feel that they dont want to see it but also allot of folks who were monitoring and pushing for it to drop more.


  • Options
    #258
    Brief_Lives
    Registered Users Posts: 2,919 ✭✭✭Brief_Lives


    Time to unfollow until the movie is out...
    you guys are just repeating yourselves...
    hasta luego..


  • Options
    #259
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    So as someone who has very little knowledge of the marvel universe for those of you who are fans what are the significance of the
    skrull.

    How do they fare as the big and the bad compared to some of the other villians we have seen. I am big in to world of warcraft and a problem they have kinda run into is the enemy bloat. How do you top fighting a world or universe ending boss and going back to fighting a lesser enemy of sorts.


  • Options
    #260
    Baggly
    Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    Skrull are pretty big deal tbh.

    They arent universe enders though. More conquerors.


  • Options
    #261
    The White Wolf
    Registered Users Posts: 5,165 ✭✭✭The White Wolf


    Varik wrote: »
    Gal Gadot doesn't seem to push it, and she seemed to take the high road and avoid it.

    There were definite attempts to pull her into controversy over her personal/political beliefs but she didn't even acknowledge them bar the odd Instagram/Twitter post clarifying what she did or didn't say.

    Was that was the right way to deal with with such cynical attempts to drag her into anything ugly.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    Calhoun wrote: »
    Why is Captain Marvel such a controversial super hero? From what I have picked up reading about the topic apparently as a marvel character is concerned the character is not as well known or liked.

    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.


  • Options
    #263
    Baggly
    Registered Users Posts: 35,024 ✭✭✭✭Baggly


    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.

    If i could thank this twice, i would.


  • Options
    #264
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Wow that is really well explained, thank you for the excellent reply. @Iguana

    Also @Pter, very interesting what you say about them and how they could change the dynamic. i suppose one of the big things we need to understand is how endgame will impact it all (
    I hear possible time travel or something like that to do a soft reset.)
    .


  • Options
    #265
    Varik
    Registered Users Posts: 12,503 ✭✭✭✭Varik


    iguana wrote: »
    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.

    Sony got offered the whole lot of $25m in 98, they were happy with just spiderman and the rest they had.


  • Options
    #266
    brianregan09
    Registered Users Posts: 8,478 ✭✭✭brianregan09


    Given the background of Captain Marvel this is a far better story and character than Black Widow and opens much more of the cosmic side

    Red Sparrow was pretty close to Black Widow's origin if ya fancy that , They are doing a black widow aswell though in the next few years , they've writers hired so far


  • Options
    #267
    Vincent van Gogh
    Registered Users Posts: 17 ✭Vincent van Gogh


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    Call me close-minded if you must, but sexist (and I don’t use that term mildly, but feel it wholly appropriate in this case) idiots abusing a user review system to attack a film before anyone’s even seen it is not a valid opinion. They can abuse the system all they want when they actually release the film.

    Was it a user review or are you interested in seeing this type of thing?

    How do you know all of their motives? It's definitely nothing to do with the just stupid DC vs Marvel trolls, trolls just in general and people who genuinely didn't want to see the film?

    Does this happen with every film that has a female lead released?

    I ask as this has been my first time seeing this stuff on film based sites (I see a lot of video game sites have issues with this too)


  • Options
    #268
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,257 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    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.

    The only other thing I would add is that she was once so insignificant to the Marvel-verse they had Rogue literally absorb all her powers (and memories and bit of her mind) so that a better character could then use her abilities such was the unimportance of Danvers :pac:


  • Options
    #269
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    That's crazy for some reason I always thought the X-Men were like a different universe.


  • Options
    #270
    iguana
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,915 Mod ✭✭✭✭iguana


    pjohnson wrote: »
    The only other thing I would add is that she was once so insignificant to the Marvel-verse they had Rogue literally absorb all her powers (and memories and bit of her mind) so that a better character could then use her abilities such was the unimportance of Danvers :pac:

    That’s not why that story happened. She “joined” the X-men from that point and Charles helped restore her memories. She was probably as, if not more, prominent as a character at that point. And then she and the X-men went to space where the Brood experimented on them and she became Binary, the ultimate incarnation of her powers.

    An example of when she was a disposable character would be when an alien impregnated her with himself, was born as her child, immediately became an adult and mind controlled her to be his lover. The rest of the Avengers waved her off happily, treating what later comics (even in 1980) treated as sexual abuse, as a wonderful romance she was lucky to be chosen for. That was when she was unimportant not as part of a story that was an important ongoing part of 80s and 90s continuity.

    Depowering characters was very common at the time in fact. Wonder Woman even spent several years as a depowered trainee ninja.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    Calhoun
    Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    iguana wrote: »
    An example of when she was a disposable character would be when an alien impregnated her with himself, was born as her child, immediately became an adult and mind controlled her to be his lover. The rest of the Avengers waved her off happily, treating what later comics (even in 1980) treated as sexual abuse, as a wonderful romance she was lucky to be chosen for. That was when she was unimportant not as part of a story that was an important ongoing part of 80s and 90s continuity.

    That is one dark dark story line.


Advertisement