|
Post by Gris on Mar 9, 2019 6:09:02 GMT -5
I went to watch it last night and it's a pretty good movie, with nice pacing, endearing character interaction and good casting choices being the best of it, having as well a couple surprises thrown in for good measure. It's a movie without any notorious flaw that can ruin it and make it terrible.
The thing is that's also very, very safe and a bit on the bland side.
And it's not entirely its fault, as weird as that can sound, but it's a nice movie in the worst possible timing window. It doesn't do any special things besides improving on the "perfectly reasonable and enjoyable Marvel movie" formula, so that drags it down given that it's sandwiched between Avengers movies. Sure, Ant-Man and the Wasp kinda had the same issue, but by betting high on light-hearted comedy the movie was its own thing.
This is just another hero movie. A very good one, compact and trimmed without padding (I'm looking at you Aquaman, even if I like you) that feels better than many of what Marvel offered in the past but... it's 2019, audiences deserve better. I enjoyed it a lot, mainly due to the acting and how the movie works it's characters, but it could be forgettable for most moviegoers. Given that it's their first female lead and that it's just before Endgame made them choose to play it safe, and the movie suffered for that.
|
|
|
Post by Dhark on Mar 9, 2019 7:12:10 GMT -5
^^That sums up perfectly I how I felt leaving the theater. Adequately entertained, but not wow’d... talking MORE about the Engame teaser mid-credit scene than the movie itself.
|
|
|
Post by takewithfood on Mar 10, 2019 18:36:11 GMT -5
So, domestically, Captain Marvel is off to the 7th best opening weekend for a Marvel movie, and the 2nd among character debuts behind only Black Panther (which was almost a sequel considering he was introduced in Civil War).
It is also crushing the foreign market, poised to have the 5th biggest opening weekend of all time. Not among Marvel movies, 5th among, you know, just movies. Yikes. (Bear in mind, The Fate of the Furious sits at #1, so...)
Given the reviews I don't know if it actually has legs, but it is on pace to push and maybe even crack $1bn overall. After the financial success of Aquaman, this is a pretty big answer from Marvel.
|
|
|
Post by ZehnWaters on Mar 11, 2019 11:40:41 GMT -5
I went to watch it last night and it's a pretty good movie, with nice pacing, endearing character interaction and good casting choices being the best of it, having as well a couple surprises thrown in for good measure. It's a movie without any notorious flaw that can ruin it and make it terrible. We must has watched different movies. I had a number of problems with the film: - Brie was pretty good at the beginning but got more bland as the movie progressed (never BAD but never GOOD either).
- Carol's only real problem is that The Patriarchy® is trying to keep her down which is a trite opponent at this point. Women CAN have actual villains you know.
- I was mortified at how Nick lost his eye as it undermined his dialogue in Winter Soldier (a far superior film).
- The film in general undermines Nick's dialogue in Avengers about WHY they started developing weapons from the Tesseract.
- As a fan of the Captain Marvel's death storyline I was likewise not too keen on how they altered Mar-Vell (why not just make them Phyla-Vell?).
- Finally, I was unhappy with how the Skrull were treated as it keeps them from being villains in the future (Super-Skrull and Secret Invasion are now off the table) and all to make some sort of silly social commentary.
On that, we agree. I give the move a C. Just above barely passing.
|
|
|
Post by Dhark on Mar 11, 2019 12:03:09 GMT -5
I wouldn’t rule out the Skrull or Secret Invasion. Nothing says that there aren’t still hidden enclaves out there, or how fast they might repopulate... and I’ve no doubt there remains plenty of resentment that can turn into a quest for vengeance (or more).
|
|
|
Post by ZehnWaters on Mar 11, 2019 12:53:32 GMT -5
I wouldn’t rule out the Skrull or Secret Invasion. Nothing says that there aren’t still hidden enclaves out there, or how fast they might repopulate... and I’ve no doubt there remains plenty of resentment that can turn into a quest for vengeance (or more). That's fair. They didn't ever really explain WHY the Skrulls and Kree were fighting. I guess it also vaguely fits with how Mar-Vell broke off from the Kree to protect Earth. The Skrull are usually MORE bad than the Kree is all. I dunno. I didn't like it but I suppose they can still do those stories.
|
|
|
Post by Gris on Mar 11, 2019 14:29:19 GMT -5
We must has watched different movies. I had a number of problems with the film: - Brie was pretty good at the beginning but got more bland as the movie progressed (never BAD but never GOOD either).
- Carol's only real problem is that The Patriarchy® is trying to keep her down which is a trite opponent at this point. Women CAN have actual villains you know.
- I was mortified at how Nick lost his eye as it undermined his dialogue in Winter Soldier (a far superior film).
- The film in general undermines Nick's dialogue in Avengers about WHY they started developing weapons from the Tesseract.
- As a fan of the Captain Marvel's death storyline I was likewise not too keen on how they altered Mar-Vell (why not just make them Phyla-Vell?).
- Finally, I was unhappy with how the Skrull were treated as it keeps them from being villains in the future (Super-Skrull and Secret Invasion are now off the table) and all to make some sort of silly social commentary.
I guess that we must have. Since I don't agree on 1 and
In mine the main problem was a warmongering empire chasing refugees and using a mind wiped protagonist as a soldier.
I didn't mind 3, I can't even remember 4 being a problem, and 5 and 6 feel like adaptational liberties that even being different from the comics we love, they make sense within the movie universe, even if not all people have to like them.
|
|
|
Post by ZehnWaters on Mar 11, 2019 14:59:02 GMT -5
I guess that we must have. Since I don't agree on 1 and
In mine the main problem was a warmongering empire chasing refugees and using a mind wiped protagonist as a soldier. I didn't mind 3, I can't even remember 4 being a problem, and 5 and 6 feel like adaptational liberties that even being different from the comics we love, they make sense within the movie universe, even if not all people have to like them.
I mean, she comes into her own when she breaks the power dampener placed upon her by a man, then proceeds to be all-powerful; seems pretty symbolic to me. 3 & 4 are retcons and undermine continuity. Fury said, in Winter Soldier, that the last time he trusted someone he lost an eye that it's because of a cat makes mockery of an otherwise serious, proceeding film. In Avengers Nick says they developed weapons from the Tesseract because of Thor yet now we know he knew about extraordinarily powerful space aliens as far back as the '90s. They and how the Avengers got their name may be little things but they show a how much this film was shoehorned in order to make Carol seem more important. Nothing about it is organic in anyway. That aside, I think the film would have worked better if made AFTER Endgame. The timing of the film feels weird.
|
|
|
Post by Gris on Mar 11, 2019 15:22:38 GMT -5
I mean, she comes into her own when she breaks the power dampener placed upon her by a man, then proceeds to be all-powerful; seems pretty symbolic to me. That the person hindering her is a man is the only point for that? Does Thor also fight against "The Patriarchy®" since his father was the one hiding his godlike powers on Ragnarok? Does Starlord too when he goes against his own father with his powers on GotG 2? Maybe Spider-Man too, given Tony Stark's mentor figure and how he first hides features from Peter's suit and then completely takes it from him on Homecoming... etc. That the villain is a man is a pretty weak argument for that. 3 & 4 are retcons and undermine continuity. Fury said, in Winter Soldier, that the last time he trusted someone he lost an eye that it's because of a cat makes mockery of an otherwise serious, proceeding film. He didn't lie, but even if I don't share the sentiment (so many things are played for a joke in the MCU that this one doesn't really stand out) I see how it could bother someone. In Avengers Nick says they developed weapons from the Tesseract because of Thor yet now we know he knew about extraordinarily powerful space aliens as far back as the '90s. They and how the Avengers got their name may be little things but they show a how much this film was shoehorned in order to make Carol seem more important. Nothing about it is organic in anyway. That aside, I think the film would have worked better if made AFTER Endgame. The timing of the film feels weird. Do they really say that? I can only remember Thor's end credits scene with Fury and Selvig/Loki and the start of the Avengers and I can't remember that specific mention.
|
|
|
Post by ZehnWaters on Mar 11, 2019 15:35:37 GMT -5
That the person hindering her is a man is the only point for that? Does Thor also fight against "The Patriarchy®" since his father was the one hiding his godlike powers on Ragnarok? Does Starlord too when he goes against his own father with his powers on GotG 2? Maybe Spider-Man too, given Tony Stark's mentor figure and how he first hides features from Peter's suit and then completely takes it from him on Homecoming... etc. That the villain is a man is a pretty weak argument for that. Bad examples, none of them were keeping their innate powers down. Odin wasn't hiding anything from Thor, Thor just needed to believe in himself (as seen in his battle against Hulk earlier in the film). Jude Law placed a dampener on her to keep her from being powerful enough to fight back. There's also social context coupled with the marketing, Brie's comments about her role in the film, and mild sexism throughout the film to make it seem to be what they were going for. And I didn't like those things in other films either, it's why I despised Ragnarok. It makes sense in GotG and Ant-Man as they're comedies. Still, those two don't undermine more serious films by being comedic. Yep. Right after Cap finds the weapons and confronts Nick. They ask why they were stockpiling weapons based on Red Skull's tech and Nick points at Thor and says it's his fault. He suddenly realized they were small gnats in the cosmic sense and they needed a defense.
|
|
|
Post by Gris on Mar 11, 2019 16:02:42 GMT -5
Bad examples, none of them were keeping their innate powers down. Odin wasn't hiding anything from Thor, Thor just needed to believe in himself (as seen in his battle against Hulk earlier in the film). Jude Law placed a dampener on her to keep her from being powerful enough to fight back. There's also social context coupled with the marketing, Brie's comments about her role in the film, and mild sexism throughout the film to make it seem to be what they were going for. Not really, two of the examples you didn't even address. The one you did seemed to miss the point of Odin hiding that Thor could do that (as he has hidden other stuff in the past, like Loki's origin or the existence of Hela). Carol does need to "believe on herself" as you said to get free of the dampener, as seen earlier in different outbursts. One movie has a father figure with a history of lying about his children, the other a mentor figure lying about his protegee, not really that different.
Oh, we finally get to the point it seems. All of those could (for many people indeed have) altered the perception of the movie for sure. But they are external to it and tend to speak louder about the beholder than the movie itself. Don't agree, but reasonable. Oh yeah, rewatched the scene. I think that it still works since it's an argument of the trouble at hand and Carol hasn't been seen on Earth for like a decade and a half, so it kinda makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by ZehnWaters on Mar 12, 2019 8:41:37 GMT -5
Not really, two of the examples you didn't even address. The one you did seemed to miss the point of Odin hiding that Thor could do that (as he has hidden other stuff in the past, like Loki's origin or the existence of Hela). Carol does need to "believe on herself" as you said to get free of the dampener, as seen earlier in different outbursts. One movie has a father figure with a history of lying about his children, the other a mentor figure lying about his protegee, not really that different.
Oh, we finally get to the point it seems. All of those could (for many people indeed have) altered the perception of the movie for sure. But they are external to it and tend to speak louder about the beholder than the movie itself. I didn't address the other two because they're not even remotely the same. The suit was never Peter's to begin with and thus wasn't an example of being held down or being kept from his potential. In Guardians Peter is actively shown how to use his powers by his dad who never tried to suppress them at all and only tried to use him as a battery much later and only very briefly. Also the relationship had a different dynamic (father/son). Also, again, Odin wasn't hiding Thor's power. He only reminded him he wasn't the god of hammers, something Thor should have known all along. Odin hadn't spent his life telling him he was the god of hammers, Carol had had her dampener on since she could remember. It was a symbol of oppression. Loki and Odin also don't work as it is, again, father/son dynamic and the reasons were different; Odin was trying to shelter him from a frightening past, not trying to repress him. At best you could argue about Hela and Odin but considering how murderous she was it's not really the same as his trapping of her is valid (presumably even his wife agreed).
As I said, not ALL of it WAS external to the film. There were lines in the film that bolster this perception (the constant flashbacks about men trying to keep her down and her getting back up (you'll notice it's never women)). It's not exactly subtle. The external stuff just confirms what message they were trying to send.
|
|
|
Post by Gris on Mar 12, 2019 9:27:28 GMT -5
I didn't address the other two because they're not even remotely the same. The suit was never Peter's to begin with and thus wasn't an example of being held down or being kept from his potential. In Guardians Peter is actively shown how to use his powers by his dad who never tried to suppress them at all and only tried to use him as a battery much later and only very briefly. Also the relationship had a different dynamic (father/son). Also, again, Odin wasn't hiding Thor's power. He only reminded him he wasn't the god of hammers, something Thor should have known all along. Odin hadn't spent his life telling him he was the god of hammers, Carol had had her dampener on since she could remember. It was a symbol of oppression. Loki and Odin also don't work as it is, again, father/son dynamic and the reasons were different; Odin was trying to shelter him from a frightening past, not trying to repress him. At best you could argue about Hela and Odin but considering how murderous she was it's not really the same as his trapping of her is valid (presumably even his wife agreed). A part of Homecoming is Peter depending on the suit to do stuff then doing said stuff without the suit. The suit if anything would come close to the dampener, no to Carol's powers, it's a hurdle to move past, not an enabler. The very first Thor movie's plot revolves around Odin depriving Thor of his godlike power, tying it to the hammer he's unworthy to wield now and getting both exiled to Earth. Fiddling with the Hero's powers is a narrative old as hell, even a comedy like Ant-Man plays on it and it's not remotely close to the idea. That Captain Marvel does so is if anything par for the course, nothing new under the sun, not some kind of proof about some kind of conspiracy. As I said, not ALL of it WAS external to the film. There were lines in the film that bolster this perception (the constant flashbacks about men trying to keep her down and her getting back up (you'll notice it's never women)). It's not exactly subtle. The external stuff just confirms what message they were trying to send. The most "aggressive" (with many "" as the movie isn't precisely brave) line in the film about the issue (females being forbidden from piloting) it's historical fact, the rest is window dressing. It really sounds like confirmation bias, honestly. The hero shot of the protagonist getting up is yet another overused device, you can have a metric ton of those in the aforementioned Marvel movies and in... well, almost any superhero movie. You also seem to purposefully avoid that the face the Supreme Intelligence wears during the whole movie including the scene where they entangle in some kind of mental "anime clash of power beams" just before that sequence is a female one.
Pretending that a company like Disney, absolute emperors of playing it safe, is going to make a movie that somehow reflects the unfortunate and clumsy as hell discourse of one of their stars, a movie that was already made by the time she said those things, is disingenuous. It's precisely playing it safe what renders this movie formulaic and not as good as it could be, not for being a bold feminist movie. How low the bar must be set for Captain Marvel to pass as "feminist propaganda" leaves me astonished.
|
|
|
Post by ZehnWaters on Mar 12, 2019 10:03:42 GMT -5
A part of Homecoming is Peter depending on the suit to do stuff then doing said stuff without the suit. The suit if anything would come close to the dampener, no to Carol's powers, it's a hurdle to move past, not an enabler. The very first Thor movie's plot revolves around Odin depriving Thor of his godlike power, tying it to the hammer he's unworthy to wield now and getting both exiled to Earth. Fiddling with the Hero's powers is a narrative old as hell, even a comedy like Ant-Man plays on it and it's not remotely close to the idea. That Captain Marvel does so is if anything par for the course, nothing new under the sun, not some kind of proof about some kind of conspiracy. Right, so in Spider-Man no one is trying to hold him down. It's keeping him from his potential in some ways but isn't purposefully designed to keep him down. Yes, in Thor, Odin takes his powers but that's punishment for Thor's own flaws, and something he can get back at any time by simply being a good person. Not the same situation at all. Yes, fiddling with powers is an old trope but it's the WHY in this case. They're trying to oppress her in order to control her. But the Supreme Intelligence ISN'T female, is it? Women working to uphold The Patriarchy® isn't exactly rare in these kinds of stories (see The Handmaid's Tale). A fake female image being used to uphold repressive actions against a powerful woman makes all the more sense and fits my point even better. Were they trying to reflect Brie's discourse or did they simply align regardless? I didn't claim it was a bold feminist movie because those are rarely bold. They are, as you stated, formulaic which is why most people don't want them. Disney playing it safe may have simply been why the writers made it less of an overt plot point but that doesn't mean it wasn't where they were headed.
|
|
|
Post by Gris on Mar 12, 2019 10:24:27 GMT -5
Right, so in Spider-Man no one is trying to hold him down. It's keeping him from his potential in some ways but isn't purposefully designed to keep him down. Yes, in Thor, Odin takes his powers but that's punishment for Thor's own flaws, and something he can get back at any time by simply being a good person. Not the same situation at all. Yes, fiddling with powers is an old trope but it's the WHY in this case. They're trying to oppress her in order to control her. That's, intentionally or otherwise, misrepresenting what I wrote. In all of the mentioned movies, even if GotG2 was seemingly lost along the discussion, a (male) authority figure is trying to keep the protagonist under control. They may have various reasons, some of them could even be seen as noble by the moviegoer, they certainly are seen as noble by the one enforcing them, but speaking from a narrative point of view they are just a hurdle for the hero to jump over and grow, nothing more than a challenge. That someone sees in this not new but true and tested method anything else but a safe way to drive an origin story says more about the one judging it than the movie itself. To be so good of a point you sure seemed to leave it out of the equation, that speaks volumes of it. And once again, as mentioned on the point before this one, it doesn't matter, they are nothing more than an antagonist. The next one is going to take a bit to unpack. No and no, as neither the tone or message of the movie come anything close to what Brie Larson said. WHOA. Once again, I didn't say that. Bad faith. So the absence of an overt feminist message is the proof of an overt feminist message. I see.
|
|