Captain Marvel - Spoilers - Enter at your own risk

Everything turns to politics AGAIN!

shadar wrote:

The Highlander wrote:
Misogynists will grumble and moan and predict failure, but I'm beginning to think the 21st century is going to be a female-centric century in the way the 20th century was male-centric. I have zero issue with this, and like most things, fiction and movies and TV will lead teh way, driving the cultural forces forward.

Shadar. 

Which gender controls reproduction?  Meaning - we already are and have been female-centric INCLUDING the wealth disparity.  Men want to reproduce, so we bust our hind parts working 60+ hours a week and much time away from home to earn enough to support the family.  In fact, the more egalitarian the society, the more women choose to work less.

Men who make a lot are more likely to select a woman of less means as a partner.

Women who make a lot are more likely to select a man of equal or greater means as partner.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

You want to truly equalize the sexes?  Allow a path for men to reproduce as easily as women and without the need for attachment.  Now THAT would truly be an equalizing technology.  Note - I realize this is nothing more than a science fiction idea.  Also, biologically, it's incredibly naive to assume that we, as a species, will undermine a few million years of genetic selection with a couple of culture changes and government programs.  Now THAT is nothing short of hilarious.  Hell, we're still adjusting to what the pill did to the gender equation.

I love strong, athletic, competent, competitive women.  That's not mainstream nor will it likely ever be since most men aren't in this standard deviation and most women want to attract most men.  I'm glad that the revolution in fitness and empowered athletic women has arrived but I don't see it suddenly making more men be attracted to the same things I am.  The genetic programming just isn't there for the majority.

shadar wrote: Everything turns to politics AGAIN!

I was answering K Shadar.  Don't get twisted over it.  Just like some of your own postulations, they are merely words.  I don't know if there is a way to block me on this forum, but if discussions bother you this much, then kindly do so.  Trust me, I won't be offended.

Starforge wrote:

shadar wrote: Everything turns to politics AGAIN!

I was answering K Shadar.  Don't get twisted over it.  Just like some of your own postulations, they are merely words.  I don't know if there is a way to block me on this forum, but if discussions bother you this much, then kindly do so.  Trust me, I won't be offended.

A few things...

1) This isn't an American forum... it's an international one. So talking about American politics is inappropriate unless we want to talk about Italian and UK, Australian and EU politics, etc.. Not to mention Asian, Russian, etc..

2) As is race.

3) But talking about socio/cultural changes that involve women, especially as it is tied to the typical group fantasies, is on-topic. The problem is that can drift into actual politics (political party names, SJW, etc etc) pretty easily. The trick is to stay focused on superwomen and the growth and success of media that supports our shared interest. 

4) I have no interest in blocking anyone, but simply tossed a caution into my earlier comment because I thought we were drifting across the line from on-topic cultural issues that affect the superwoman fantasy, and actual US politics. 

But I understand the line gets pretty blurry and very narrow sometimes, It's up to the moderators to draw the hard "no politics" lines. 

Shadar

@Starforge

Appreciate the response.  There is a lot to break down, so I will do my best to respond as best I can.

Why did it not perform well overseas?  I already answered that - DC's broken and struggling universe.  *IF* their storytelling had been as popular (and good) as the MCU, that might have been different. 

That’s exactly my point.

Also - if you think Gal Gadot is only a pretty face, you've never seen her interviewed.  I wasn't particularly a fan for her for the role (weak acting and underwear model versus someone who looked the part and could act) but she comes across as someone who is fun and nice. Maybe that's all an act, but then I'll have to bump up my evaluation of her acting ability.

I have seen her interviewed MANY times.  She seems like a nice enough person.  But that wasn’t what I was referring to.  In regards to her acting, yes, she is just a pretty face.

As to Chris Evans and any other Hollywood actor having the same politics - exactly where did Chris say that there were too many white people doing a particular job?  I'll wait.

This is also exactly my point.  I don’t care if, when or what he, or Larson, said or say.  They are actors and it is what they say, and how they act on screen that counts for me.

I have no problem with Democrats - they are entitled to their point of view and we have elections every so often that change out one corporate backed group for the other . 

Agree.

I have a problem with racists and people who justify their racism with identity politics and intersectionality. 

And yet you may, or may not to be fair, have a problem with Gadot and her pro-Israeli stance. But that’s by the by to be honest.

I'm a nationalist (not to be confused by placing 'white' in front of it) and believe that all CITIZENS of the US are endowed with certain unalienable rights (you might be familiar with the document.)  I also have a strong belief in the foundation of our society which is rooted in English common law.  Discrimination is wrong - regardless of whether one bundles it in post-modern Marxism or not.

Ofc discrimination is wrong.  I am assuming you are referring to Larson when she said she doesn’t want to be interviewed anymore by “white dudes”. 

See, heres the rub of it.  SHE has that right.  If she feels she doesn’t want to be interviewed based on the color of the persons skin, or gender, or politics, it’s HER choice.  She is a person as much as the next man or woman. 

Does this make it right or wrong?  I personally don’t think that dichotomy applies.  Imo, she has the right to converse with whomever she chooses.  Just like everyone else.

Answer me this, K - if you review a movie is it invalid because of your race or gender?  Is it possible for other people reading your review to be intelligent enough to determine for themselves your take on the movie?  If so (and assuming you're a white male) you inherently invalidated her criticism.

Ofc a review isn’t invalid because of race or gender. Again, I am going to assume this is in reference to Larson and her “white dudes” remarks.

If you look at that, this isn’t what she was saying.  To put that in context, I’ll try and give this example. 

A black person (man or woman) will review, let us say, Black Panther from a different point of view then a white person (man or woman).  This is undeniable given that the critic (regardless of gender or race) draws on their own experiences, culture and so forth.

Both can review the technical aspects of the movie with equal weight, but which carries more overall weight with regards to themes, characterization, and so forth? 

Unless the “white dude” is an expert on African culture and studies (which I assume most aren’t), then any critique with regards to those elements, will invariably be invalid (or at least less valid) compared to a, let us say, African critic, who was bought up in that culture.  This is just logic.

I wouldn’t comment on say, the authenticity of the set or costume design in Black Panther for example.

In addition, the film isn’t aimed at me. I am not the target audience.  Thus my views on it (outside commentating on technical aspects of film making), will be less valid and carry less weight.

The same applies to gender.  There are films aimed at a female audience which I couldn’t possibly comment on with any form of validity, as I am not a woman (outside of what I noted as being the technical aspects of the film).

So, to bring it back to Larson, the core of what she is saying is valid.  She isn’t saying “white dudes shouldn’t critiques these films”.  She is posing the premise I’ve tried to illustrate above, albeit perhaps in a clumsy fashion (much like me too maybe )

Of course, if your elitist view is that everyone is stupid and incapable of evaluating what they read or see such that 'white men' making reviews are exerting undue influence on their ability to evaluate the content being reviewed, I'd find that sad.  We need more non-white movie critics like we need more white NBA players.  Or maybe let the people who are actually good at the job rise to the top based on merit.

I’m not sure I totally follow what you mean here, but I totally agree with the bold part.  All things should be based on a persons merit, and not their gender, class, or race.

Sorry for the long winded reply. I hope I have responded to your points in a clear manner.

Good discussion.

Peace.

/K

shadar wrote:

Starforge wrote:

shadar wrote: Everything turns to politics AGAIN!

I was answering K Shadar.  Don't get twisted over it.  Just like some of your own postulations, they are merely words.  I don't know if there is a way to block me on this forum, but if discussions bother you this much, then kindly do so.  Trust me, I won't be offended.

A few things...

1) This isn't an American forum... it's an international one. So talking about American politics is inappropriate unless we want to talk about Italian and UK, Australian and EU politics, etc.. Not to mention Asian, Russian, etc..

2) As is race.

3) But talking about socio/cultural changes that involve women, especially as it is tied to the typical group fantasies, is on-topic. The problem is that can drift into actual politics (political party names, SJW, etc etc) pretty easily. The trick is to stay focused on superwomen and the growth and success of media that supports our shared interest. 

4) I have no interest in blocking anyone, but simply tossed a caution into my earlier comment because I thought we were drifting across the line from on-topic cultural issues that affect the superwoman fantasy, and actual US politics. 

But I understand the line gets pretty blurry and very narrow sometimes, It's up to the moderators to draw the hard "no politics" lines. 

Shadar

Shadar, I'm all for rich fantasy ideas especially when it comes to our favorite topic.  People create sometimes simplistic and sometimes (less frequently) detailed worlds covering such.  I'm all for it.  Unfortunately, however, some seem to blur the line as to their fantasy life and the real world..

Attack of the hyper muscular Amazons come to the world to crush your tanks and men!  Good.

Men are misogynistic pigs who hold women down and it's about time women stood up and did something about it! - Not so good.  It's a generalization that isn't true on many levels and usually is supported by anecdotal evidence or pure opinion at best.

Keeping all politics out would be fine - but that would include (IMO) speculation about how current policies or current gender ideas in the real world apply because such things are inherently political.  Diving into one is the same as diving into the other.

Thats fair enough Fats.  No worries.

Peace.

/K

I wanted to make a quick comment on Capt. Marvel's appearance in "Avengers: End Game."  Well in short, she doesn't appear that often in the movie at all - only a couple of times.  She does however appear at the critical moments.  I discussed with a buddy of mine why she didn't appear much in the movie and we came up with two reasons:  1) She wasn't a part of the original Avengers team and the movie focused more on the characters we have grown familiar with and the bonds they have formed with each other while battling evil together all these years; and 2) she is just too powerful.  In the climactic battle, we see that defeating Thanos and his army single-handedly is well within her capabilities.  She doesn't, because of some clever improvisation on Thanos' part while battling her, but she is definitely powerful enough.  Having her engage more in the battle would result in it ending too quickly - for audiences.

She says in the beginning with a dead pan, matter of fact voice that she was going to go find and kill Thanos.  It was kind of funny, but it turns out, she could.

It makes sense though.  She travels the universe helping those that need help and in Earth's battle v Thanos it was no different.  She allocated just enough time and effort to help the Avengers win and then it's off to the next one.

My thoughts / 2 cents.  Curious what others think.

Remember how some people were railing against Brie Larson as a stuck-up Social Justice Warrior? Now others are railing against her as an icon of white supremacy!

www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/972/6...29kTvug7zcqRWDIS1YYo

In today's stupid ideological wars, you can't win!

--Brantley Thompson Elkins

brantley wrote: Remember how some people were railing against Brie Larson as a stuck-up Social Justice Warrior? Now others are railing against her as an icon of white supremacy!

www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/972/6...29kTvug7zcqRWDIS1YYo

In today's stupid ideological wars, you can't win!

--Brantley Thompson Elkins

Last I heard she was just another actress. A moderately good one who is still learning how to manage her public persona. 

Seems to me people confuse characters with actors way too much. It's all fantasy in the end.

Shadar

A bit of added craziness for that petition.

1) The petition is because Captain Marvel was "Whitewashed", claiming the original Captain Marvel was a black woman. This of course, misses that the Captain Marvel they are referring to was in fact the 3rd comic book character to have that name - following one white male and one visually white skinned alien male, the second one in Marvel alone, and whose only relation to the character's "Captain Marvel" involved in this story is that she adopted her name in recognition of the original.

2) The Captain Marvel they refer to is actually in the movie played by a black woman. She is the main character's friend, Monica - and they are using the current continuity of the comics that has the two characters having served in the air force together.

It's always good to know the history of a character before claiming they're whitewashed, and getting over 9000 (closing quickly on the 10000 that will trigger it sending to Disney) signatures..

Avalian wrote: A bit of added craziness for that petition.

1) The petition is because Captain Marvel was "Whitewashed", claiming the original Captain Marvel was a black woman. This of course, misses that the Captain Marvel they are referring to was in fact the 3rd comic book character to have that name - following one white male and one visually white skinned alien male, the second one in Marvel alone, and whose only relation to the character's "Captain Marvel" involved in this story is that she adopted her name in recognition of the original.

2) The Captain Marvel they refer to is actually in the movie played by a black woman. She is the main character's friend, Monica - and they are using the current continuity of the comics that has the two characters having served in the air force together.

It's always good to know the history of a character before claiming they're whitewashed, and getting over 9000 (closing quickly on the 10000 that will trigger it sending to Disney) signatures..

To add more data and some minor nitpicks.

Monica Rambeau was the 2nd Captain Marvel*.  #1 (Mar-vell) and #3 (Genis-Vell, son of Mar-vell) were both white skinned Kree (aliens).  Genis-Vell later takes on the cosmic awarness look (black with stars floating).   Mar-vell was gender-swapped and played by Annette Benning in Captain Marvel.  Monica Rambeau gave up the name to Mar-vell's son so he could carry on the legacy whe she found out he was using it..  There was some overlap when both were operating as Captain Marvel.

Monica Rambeau was in the young daughter in the movie, her mother, Maria Rambeau, was Carol's friend..  Her fighter pilot call-sign is Photon, which is a name Monica Rambeau uses after Captain Marvel.  So when we flash forward to modern day, we'll (hopefully) find Monica as 30-ish black woman who gains powers and become Photon.

Monica Rambeau hasn't been Captain Marvel for over twenty years (since 1996).

That last bit is the important part. She wasn't the original Captain Marvel, had no connection to the original Captain Marvel (unlike Carol Danvers). She hasn't been Captain Marvel for decades, though is still active using other names. OTH, Carol Danvers has been "Ms. Marvel" since 77?, is a much older/established character than Monica Rambeau, is the current Captain Marvel, and came by her name in tribute to the first Captain Marvel*.

So Carol earned her movie, and earned her name.  Photon/Spectrum can come later. You could argue they should have made a Photon movie ... but that's a different argument. Similarly, they could have made a Kamala Khan Ms. Marvel movie too.  I'll be REALLY supprised if Kamala doesn't get a movie --- it just makes a lot of sense for her movie to come after Captain Marvel.

" Counts of Captain Marvel ignoring Faucet's Captain Marvel and only counting Marvel Comics versions.

Hey guys, just adding my two cents.

First, I don’t give a crap about the DCEU/MCU. I only watch movies with superheroines as leads because that’s what I like. Other than WW and Captain Marvel I only watched the very first Avengers movie and found it utterly boring, enough to understand that movies with male superheroes as mains simply don’t interest me.

So, when I watch a DC/Marvel movie I already know the writing is gonna be bad. Too light an entertainment for me. So what I do seek is just a powerful girl kicking ass.

While WW was riddled with a love story I could have done without, and while Gal Gadot doesn’t have anything at all that would make her an ideal choice for the character, I liked it because it was the story of a undoubtedly FEMALE superhero. A superhero that celebrated her own femininity and the power that came with it. A strong woman in a man-dominated world, scoffed at before earning respect. You couldn’t simply replace WW with Superman and have the same story, it was a unique tale tailored to a superheroine.

Like someone here has already said, this isn’t true for Captain Marvel. It’s a spectacularly genderless story. Cpt Marvel being a woman is an element of utter irrelevance. You could have swapped her with a man and not change one thing save for pronouns. She doesn’t even have a love interest. And there is absolutely zero fanservice (not in one frame she shows any skin).

I’m not saying this is bad, I’m clearly not their target audience. Perhaps this is the ultimate maturity of female superheroes, being entirely indistinguishable from male ones. No sexism and no objectification. But even if I’m to be an asshole, even if I’m an objectifying piece of shit, let me have this space to say goddammit I wish superheroines still had anything inherently female to flaunt. 

j2001 wrote: Hey guys, just adding my two cents.

First, I don’t give a crap about the DCEU/MCU. I only watch movies with superheroines as leads because that’s what I like. Other than WW and Captain Marvel I only watched the very first Avengers movie and found it utterly boring, enough to understand that movies with male superheroes as mains simply don’t interest me.

So, when I watch a DC/Marvel movie I already know the writing is gonna be bad. Too light an entertainment for me. So what I do seek is just a powerful girl kicking ass.

While WW was riddled with a love story I could have done without, and while Gal Gadot doesn’t have anything at all that would make her an ideal choice for the character, I liked it because it was the story of a undoubtedly FEMALE superhero. A superhero that celebrated her own femininity and the power that came with it. A strong woman in a man-dominated world, scoffed at before earning respect. You couldn’t simply replace WW with Superman and have the same story, it was a unique tale tailored to a superheroine.

Like someone here has already said, this isn’t true for Captain Marvel. It’s a spectacularly genderless story. Cpt Marvel being a woman is an element of utter irrelevance. You could have swapped her with a man and not change one thing save for pronouns. She doesn’t even have a love interest. And there is absolutely zero fanservice (not in one frame she shows any skin).

I’m not saying this is bad, I’m clearly not their target audience. Perhaps this is the ultimate maturity of female superheroes, being entirely indistinguishable from male ones. No sexism and no objectification. But even if I’m to be an asshole, even if I’m an objectifying piece of shit, let me have this space to say goddammit I wish superheroines still had anything inherently female to flaunt. 

Some good thoughts. I also like superheroine characters to be distinctly female in the way they look, think, act, dress and the way they solve problems. And when you're essentially invulnerable, clothing serves no purpose other than to make you look really cool.  There is no downside to dressing exotically sexy when you have a perfect body and no risk of harm or sexual exploitation. 

In other words, a woman who celebrates her freedom by dressing and doing exactly as she wishes. 

How would that work in the real world?  Certainly not like in the movies, which have to work through a huge pile of cultural issues and norms and expectations. Go back 50 years and costumes couldn't be too revealing. Now they can't be revealing because that's exploitive and sexist. 

The heck with all that. 

In my world, costumes are used to dazzle and confuse the bad guys during tense crime situations and to provide freedom of movement and to say "screw you" to the stuffy people of the world, And having a costume get blown or shot away is part of the thrill. 

So no, male and female characters should not be even remotely interchangeable in a story. They have different strengths and weaknesses and different strategies, etc. etc. Something that's pretty obvious in my stories. 

Shadar

shadar wrote:

j2001 wrote: Hey guys, just adding my two cents.

First, I don’t give a crap about the DCEU/MCU. I only watch movies with superheroines as leads because that’s what I like. Other than WW and Captain Marvel I only watched the very first Avengers movie and found it utterly boring, enough to understand that movies with male superheroes as mains simply don’t interest me.

So, when I watch a DC/Marvel movie I already know the writing is gonna be bad. Too light an entertainment for me. So what I do seek is just a powerful girl kicking ass.

While WW was riddled with a love story I could have done without, and while Gal Gadot doesn’t have anything at all that would make her an ideal choice for the character, I liked it because it was the story of a undoubtedly FEMALE superhero. A superhero that celebrated her own femininity and the power that came with it. A strong woman in a man-dominated world, scoffed at before earning respect. You couldn’t simply replace WW with Superman and have the same story, it was a unique tale tailored to a superheroine.

Like someone here has already said, this isn’t true for Captain Marvel. It’s a spectacularly genderless story. Cpt Marvel being a woman is an element of utter irrelevance. You could have swapped her with a man and not change one thing save for pronouns. She doesn’t even have a love interest. And there is absolutely zero fanservice (not in one frame she shows any skin).

I’m not saying this is bad, I’m clearly not their target audience. Perhaps this is the ultimate maturity of female superheroes, being entirely indistinguishable from male ones. No sexism and no objectification. But even if I’m to be an asshole, even if I’m an objectifying piece of shit, let me have this space to say goddammit I wish superheroines still had anything inherently female to flaunt. 

Some good thoughts. I also like superheroine characters to be distinctly female in the way they look, think, act, dress and the way they solve problems. And when you're essentially invulnerable, clothing serves no purpose other than to make you look really cool.  There is no downside to dressing exotically sexy when you have a perfect body and no risk of harm or sexual exploitation. 

In other words, a woman who celebrates her freedom by dressing and doing exactly as she wishes. 

How would that work in the real world?  Certainly not like in the movies, which have to work through a huge pile of cultural issues and norms and expectations. Go back 50 years and costumes couldn't be too revealing. Now they can't be revealing because that's exploitive and sexist. 

The heck with all that. 

In my world, costumes are used to dazzle and confuse the bad guys during tense crime situations and to provide freedom of movement and to say "screw you" to the stuffy people of the world, And having a costume get blown or shot away is part of the thrill. 

So no, male and female characters should not be even remotely interchangeable in a story. They have different strengths and weaknesses and different strategies, etc. etc. Something that's pretty obvious in my stories. 

Shadar

I love these replies.

I bought Ms. Marvel #1 of the rack back in the day.  I am firmly behind Hot Pants Supergirl wearing ballerina slippers.

OTH, I'll take the Captain Marvel movie over Catwoman w/ Halle Berry any day.  Despite how hot Halle Berry is and her revealing outfit.  (ALso holy crap is she still hot as hell in John Wick 3.) 

Characters should be written as fully realized people.  There are many paths to that.  An interchanable character CAN work.  Just look at Ripley from Alien.  The part was originally written for a man.  (Ditto for Jolie's Salt.)  But, the point is also valid, esp framed as a preference.  The are many paths.

I just let Captain Marvel be what it was, and decided that I enjoyed it.  I also think that MCU Carol Danvers IS a woman who celebrates her freedom by dressing and doing exactly as she wishes.

Not a spoiler, but a recent Facebook post by sf writer CJ Cherryh:

Watched Captain Marvel last night. A plot. An actual plot. Intelligence in between explosions. So much better than Aquaman, which was our prior. The one thing I wish Hollywood would learn is the word 'galaxy' in its proper application. But hey,...it has a plot

Brie Larson gives credit to her stunt doubles (click on the 17 Jun 2019)

brantley wrote: Not a spoiler, but a recent Facebook post by sf writer CJ Cherryh:

Watched Captain Marvel last night. A plot. An actual plot. Intelligence in between explosions. So much better than Aquaman, which was our prior. The one thing I wish Hollywood would learn is the word 'galaxy' in its proper application. But hey,...it has a plot

Interesting and encouraging that Cherryh could find some kind words for the movie. I'm not that fond of her writing style, but I'm in awe of her contribution to the world of Science Fiction.

Shadar

shadar wrote:

brantley wrote: Not a spoiler, but a recent Facebook post by sf writer CJ Cherryh:

Watched Captain Marvel last night. A plot. An actual plot. Intelligence in between explosions. So much better than Aquaman, which was our prior. The one thing I wish Hollywood would learn is the word 'galaxy' in its proper application. But hey,...it has a plot

Interesting and encouraging that Cherryh could find some kind words for the movie. I'm not that fond of her writing style, but I'm in awe of her contribution to the world of Science Fiction.

Shadar

I never got into Cherryh, I always meant to.  I have read Cyteen and. Regenesis and loved them.  There are many themes there that resonate close to what we like here.  No super-strong femmes, but a lot of genetic engineering and strong female characters.  Unlike our preference it’s all mostly psychological, but I thought it one of the best books dealing with the subject.  It’s hard to write a book filled with insanely smart and talented people who have been honed in a competitive environment, and she pulls it off.

I read some of her other works and it didn’t resonate as much with me.  I keep meaning to follow along w/ that universe and more of her hard sci if but I read Downbelow station and it was just ok, and I’ve been distracted since.

And awe is right, she’s got an extensive body of work.  I really should find another book and give her another go since as I said I REALLY like Cyteen/Regenesis, and I’d recommend them not as a SWM-book, but just as a really great Sci-Fi book (that might also have some inspiration for things we like here).

Great that she liked Captain Marvel.

CJ speaks for herself:

www.blackgate.com/2016/05/15/we-are-a-ro...-newest-grandmaster/



--Brantley

She also wrote a Superman novel, Lois & Clark, apparently unrelated to the TV series of the same name:

www.amazon.com/s?k=Cherryh+Lois+%26+Clark&ref=nb_sb_noss

--Brantley