?>
GTX0 NewestRepliesHottestMy Active
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds


Entertainment & Media



We're gonna need a bigger boat.



Jeremy is the only reviewer I follow (mostly because he seems to be the type of guy Id have a beer with) I dont always agree with him but for the most part I tend to enjoy a lot of the stuff he likes.

I havent seen Captain Marvel yet, but it appears to be a Phase 1 film competing (not the word I am looking for but it will do) against Phase 3 films.

My issue from the start has been that the actress just does not seem likable at all. She showed no emotions in the trailer I saw. That stood out to me because the majority of the marvel heroes appeared to be likable and funny in their own solo films (with the exception of Doctor Strange. He was an ass hat for the first 30 minutes or so) the actress seems a little too stoic for me.

it is being pedaled as a feminist film of sorts but like jeremy points out, DC was able to give us one of those. Even the MCU has some pretty amazing super heroines (the female cast of black panther for instance)

I hope I am wrong. But in a nutshell I like charismatic characters and from what Ive seen (Ive only seen the first trailer) she is not very charismatic and comes off as bland.

((I refuse to watch more than one trailer for the MCU movies, mostly because I had a great scene in ant man spoiled for me :( )

In the long run... I think it will be like Doctor Strange. I disliked his solo movie the first time I watched it, but he was my favorite part of infinity war. (prompting me to rewatch his solo film which is average at best)

so more than likely I will find my self disliking her solo film, but loving her in end game.

There are 30 Replies
Page:
1 2 3 Load all posts
settingsSettings

I havent seen Captain Marvel yet, but it appears to be a Phase 1 film competing (not the word I am looking for but it will do) against Phase 3 films.

I felt that way about Ant-Man but against Phase 2 films.

Posted March 5th by Fox Forever

It's an origin story, but it doesn't really look like a Phase I film. (Sort of like how Dr. Strange and Guardians of the Galaxy were both origin stories, but neither were Phase I films.) The Phases, frankly, are a now-arbitrary distinction to simply convey time more than anything.

As for seeming criticisms of her character from a single trailer: I'd point out that Tony Stark is literally the biggest asshole in the MCU, but people like him. Dr. Strange is an asshole, and people like him. (I know the point of these characters is to go from asshole to selfless hero - although I'd argue that Stark remains an asshole through and through.) And for the emotions, I mean, Captain America showed no real emotions in pretty much any of his trailers. Bruce Banner displayed a single emotional beat in trailers (and through most of his film time prior to Ragnarok).

Thing is, Carol Danvers kind of is that stereotypical military stoic archetype character, largely because she is emulating the man's world she inhabits. She's deeper than that, but displaying more of a stoic attitude outwardly is kind of part of her character. You don't often get a lot of emotional beats in two-minute trailers. As with any comic book character, some people will love that about her; others won't. This a character-driven genre, after all. So far from the trailer I've seen, she seems pretty Captain Marvel-y to me enough to be excited. Even Captain America - Sir Broodsalot himself - winds up a lot more emotionally complex within his films than the trailers make it seem. None of these characters have really been one-note beings (except maybe Bruce Banner pre-Ragnarok).

Posted March 5th by Jet Presto

Just got back, and it definitely doesn't feel like a "Phase I" film outside the fact that it's an origin story. A lot of it actually builds off of what we saw in Guardians of the Galaxy, even. On top of that, cinematically, it pulls some stuff that a Phase I movie never would have done because it would have been "too risky." There are a lot of actually pretty beautiful shots and some unique ways to visually convey stuff that we just didn't see in the more paint-by-numbers, play-it-safe style of Phase I films that started to change in Phase II.

Suffice it to say, Carol Danvers definitely has personality. She is definitively not stoic. She's not as quippy as Iron Man or Spider-Man, but is more on the quippier side.

Thought it was good. Probably not a Top 3 for me, but I'd definitely put it in the top half. There were a lot of film elements that I really appreciated that were unique and different than what we've seen before. There are even some plot threads that - as a long time comic reader - I *definitely* appreciate that they used my knowledge against me. But there are also a number of elements that feel like they're pulling too much from Guardians of the Galaxy. And I know they wanted a really impressive, massive empowerment/victory lap at the very end, but I do wish it ended before the other ships arrived. The fight with that one squad is probably where the action should have ended. But, it's not exactly like Marvel has ever learned when to stop with the action.

I kinda really dug the antagonists, but I would have enjoyed it a little more if they got a liiiiiittle more depth. I would say it was among the more interesting Marvel villains, but obviously that doesn't mean much.



Posted March 11th by Jet Presto

I went to see it and I found the 90s humor quite funny. I agree the antagonists could have used more fleshing out and screen time. I'm not really sure how I feel about the titular character, but Sam Jackson was great through the whole film and genuinely funny with his kitty moments. I think Brie Larson herself might be where I find the movie less interesting. When she's not making a joke or a sarcastic quip, I find her pretty dull. Carol Danvers the name is even pretty Similar to Kara Danvers (Supergirl) - they both have space backgrounds and a lot of raw power - and I find Supergirl's TV show lead actress loads more interesting than Brie Larson's Captain Marvel. Just my opinion though. She wasn't horrible.

Edited March 11th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

I saw iy too. To me it did feel like a phase 1 film. I enjoyed it more than I thought I would but overall it was a forgettable experience.


I'm not too sold on them wanting to make captain marvel the strongest hero ever but we will see what they do in end game.

Posted March 11th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

Just curious: what exactly makes you say that it felt like a Phase I film?


Carol Danvers the name is even pretty Similar to Kara Danvers (Supergirl)


Well, the history of the DC/Marvel comic book rivalry is one loaded with ripping each other off. So maybe. But what's sort of interesting here is that DC changed Supergirl's alter-ego human name to Kara Danvers in 2016, 40 years after Carol Danvers appeared as Ms. Marvel. Previously, she was Kara Zor-El with the human name of Kara Kent. So, it's sorta like Marvel might have ripped off DC a little bit (they do have pretty different backgrounds, despite the spacey nature of both), but then DC ripped off Marvel later.

I don't really see much comparison beyond the sometimes obvious rip-off origins. They've both done a good job distinguishing their characters from each other. Nova and Green Lantern are different. Aquaman and Namor are different. Green Arrow and Hawkeye are different. Quicksilver and Flash are different. Et cetera, et cetera. They clearly ripped each other a lot in creating characters, but in the decades since, many creators have done a good job writing more unique characterizations.

Posted March 11th by Jet Presto

I realize that, in comparing Captain Marvel to Star Trek: Insurrection, he wasn't intending to make a grave insult, but man. Insurrection is a horrible movie. Worse than Generations. Worse than Final Frontier. Worse than Into Darkness. Even worse than Nemesis. I am prepared to defend that opinion!

In the long run... I think it will be like Doctor Strange. I disliked his solo movie the first time I watched it, but he was my favorite part of infinity war. (prompting me to rewatch his solo film which is average at best)

The banter between him and Iron Man really was my favorite part of that movie. I've seen maybe half of the Marvel universe films, but Dr. Strange was actually one of my favorites. I like watching Cumberbatch play a highly competent jerk, and I really like how he wins the day at the end. It's just clever enough to be memorable, in the sense that it's not just another case of blowing things up until they die.

If there was one thing the Justice League movie had that was interesting (and it really was one solitary thing) it was the fight between Superman and everyone else. What makes Superman cool, at least in comparsion to others, is how strong he truly is even next to them. I've heard it said that Captain Marvel is Marvel's equivalent to Superman. In this sense, I could see her being interesting in Endgame if they make a point of exploring that dynamic, but to be honest I really don't know the character all that well and if there would be a reason to do so.

Her standalone movie isn't on my must-watch list, but neither was Dr. Strange and I ended up liking it anyway. I'll probably end up seeing her in endgame first, and if she's interesting I'll make a point to give this one a chance.

Edited March 11th by Famov

I agree with your take on Dr. Strange. I really enjoyed the ending. Made it stand out among the rest of the crop of either generic CGI army that just gets punched until the deus ex machina device can be set into motion, or the blue beam shooting into the sky needing to be shut down thing. (Plus, I really enjoyed the Steve Ditko more psychedlic visual elements. Not sure it's among my favorites, but it's a top half for me.

I've heard some criticize Captain Marvel for its timing, saying it feels like filler just because End Game is looming. But that kinda makes me sad about the ways people consume cinema. Like, we can't enjoy solo features unless they build to a larger cross-over event. That was a thing that was near-ruinous for the comic book industry (and it's still, frankly, a problem now). And I actually think the *worst* parts of Captain Marvel are the parts where they feel they have to connect to the larger world. I think the future, especially for Marvel, is going to be more self-contained films (as they have largely been anyway). And I mean, it's not like any previous film *actually* built to Infinity War in any meaningful way. Just kind of a bummer that more and more people *need* a film to connect to another film or a larger universe to fully enjoy it for what that movie is.

Posted March 11th by Jet Presto

my friend got mad because the movie liked representation of minority characters.



Posted March 11th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

Well, to be a little fair, Marvel hasn't exactly been known to include particularly Latinx or Asian actors, outside a very small handful. Largely their representation of minority characters have just been black sidekick roles when not either Sam Jackson or covered in green makeup.

Posted March 11th by Jet Presto

Latinx

cringe

eh its a non issue considering there's not a lot of asian/ Hispanic superheroes to choose from. It really upset her though. I found it to be hilarious how wild her rant was. We are both Hispanic and had no issues with the movie.


This article points out my issues with the "latinx" movement. (First 2 paragraphs) it does poiby out that those against it are usually men. But from my experience I don't see the movement getting much traction out side of the U.S. especially not on Latin American countries.

www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna957036

Edited March 11th by S.o.h.
S.o.h.
 

Finally saw this one. I enjoyed it, think it'll slot it somewhere around the middle of Marvel films for me or maybe a little lower? Actually quite liked the titular character herself quite a bit--she's definitely not a bland, stoic military type, and her banter the other characters was a lot of fun and reminded me of more of how I interact with my friends than does Marvel's usual quippy dialogue. She came across way more as an irreverent hero who only took things seriously thanks to her commander's constant insistence that she clamp down on her emotions. She often seemed like she was just brimming with confidence, particularly in her fight on the Skrull ship, and it was really enjoyable to watch. As far as power level goes, man were they not kidding when they said she's probably the most powerful hero yet. I'm on record as preferring less-powerful heroes on the whole, and by the end of the movie I was starting to wonder just how they were going to make credible threats for her going forward, especially if she stays on Earth as the leader of the Avengers post-Endgame as has been suggested (I had similar reactions when I saw Doctor Strange toying around with Thor in Ragnarok and Thor after he got Stormbreaker in Endgame). Should be spectacular in Endgame, at the very least.

I do get the Phase 1 comparison for this one, the main reason being that it took us back to a pre-Avengers Earth where the existence of superheroes and aliens is not a commonly-known fact. After the Battle of New York, all of the Marvel films that took place on or mostly on Earth had the backdrop of the Avengers and the Chitauri and at least seemed aware of the wider MCU, even if they were generally stand-alone films, but this one had that more grounded feel that IMO characterized the Phase 1 films. I also kinda think that the humor has gotten more obvious and over-the-top as the MCU has gotten on (not necessarily a bad thing--I think it has led to both more laugh-out-loud moments and more awkward whiffs), whereas this felt like a throw-back to the earlier films' more subtle humor. Probably Doctor Strange is the other recent film that felt more Phase 1ey, as I don't really recall much of an acknowledgement of other superheroes at all, though the magic elements certainly made it feel more fantastical.
Villains:



Side characters:



As far as representation goes, it's a good point that those two groups have been largely ignored even when taking the MCU TV shows into account (despite the TV shows usually being far more diverse). You could probably count on one hand the number of Hispanic main characters across the MCU (I can only think of four off the top of my head--Claire from the Netflix shows, Luis from Ant-Man, Elena Rodriguez from SHIELD, and Molly Hernandez from Runaways). Asians I think have fared a bit better, with Skye and May being leads on SHIELD since the start, Colleen over on Iron Fist, the Minoru family on Runaways, and Wong in Doctor Strange (though of course there was the Ancient One controversy). They've also been fast-tracking a Shang-Chi movie and just named a director, so they should be making progress on that front at least.

Posted March 19th by white lancer

I tend to use gender-neutral pronouns like "they" or "latinx" predominantly out of ease of typing. I personally find "he or she" or "Latino or Latina" to just be tedious and clunky grammatically (even though I know it is "correct" grammatically). So any time I can save time and words with a gender-neutral term, since I am not referring to any specific gender, I will.


I'm on record as preferring less-powerful heroes on the whole, and by the end of the movie I was starting to wonder just how they were going to make credible threats for her going forward


See, I don't really think this is that much of a problem, especially if they continue to explore the cosmic side of the universe. She is the most powerful hero, but she's also the one big cosmic super. She's sort of like "space Hulk" in a way, or cinematically, more like space Thor. (As Thor has generally been grounded mostly to Earth in his on-screen appearances.)

In the comics, the cosmic stuff has always been incredibly powerful (I mean, one of the most well-known cosmic villains is Galactus, who literally eats planets). And there is no shortage of cosmic baddies that they can pit against Captain Marvel going forward. Given her cosmic origins and powers, it has seemed pretty unlikely to me that she would spend much time on Earth for her superhero future. I never really bought the idea that she would sort of take over the role of leader of Avengers. (Especially given in more recent years, she has been more space-oriented in the comics, and they clearly draw a lot more from that in the film.)

Same thing sort of works with Thor, really. They've opened him up to more of his cosmic/fantasy roots that now give him access to more powerful villains that they couldn't really use because for a while, the cinematic universe was more grounded and Earth-oriented. Thor doesn't have to be that. He's become more powerful, but there are plenty of equally, if not more powerful rogues Thor can face if they decide to keep him in the other realms. (Or space, if they want to bring Beta Ray Bill into it, which man, wouldn't that be something!)

And the same is true with Dr. Strange. If they just allow these characters to operate in their own mini-worlds within the larger universe (Thor in the realms, Captain Marvel in space, Dr. Strange in the mystic dimensions), they have no trouble coming up with tough bad guys in the comics. I don't see why that would be a problem on screen. (And if Marvel brings the Fantastic Four into the equation, they might even be able to bring in Super Skrull, who they can ramp up a bit to be a powerful villain for her to face.)

So I'm not sure the "overpowered" thing is quite accurate. Compared to Earth-based heroes, yes, but that is why they should keep her in the cosmic universe. She wouldn't be able to take on Annihilus on her own, for example. (Actually, I wonder if that's the next big event, now that I'm thinking about it...)


but this one had that more grounded feel that IMO characterized the Phase 1 films.


Interesting. Personally, I didn't feel like they really grounded it that much. To me, it felt a lot more like Phase II in that way, where it felt like it was breaking away from the more grounded nature of Phase I. (I also just look at some of the cinematic techniques and cannot for the life of me imagine stuff like how they handled flashbacks ever appearing in a Phase I film. Those things were static as heck, cinematically.)

Re: Skrulls as a comic reader




God I want this Shang-Chi movie to be good. Please, please, please let them make an action movie less in the style of a Western action film and more in the style of a classic Hong Kong flick...



Edited March 20th by Jet Presto

pretty cool to see a pro-palestine marvel movie

Posted March 20th by poptart!

What's wrong with like, hispanic as a gender-neutral word? Is it just not the right word? I mean I don't claim to know since I'm white.

Posted March 20th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

Well, Hispanic generally refers to people of Spanish-speaking descent, while Latino/Latina/Latinx refers specifically to people from Central/South America. They are often used interchangeably, but they don't mean exactly the same thing. Like, if you're from Spain, you could say you're Hispanic. But you wouldn't say you are Latino.

Posted March 20th by Jet Presto

Jet is correct. All Latinos are Hispanic, but not all Hispanics are Latino.

Source: lived in South Texas for my entire life.

Posted March 20th by nullfather

There are also people in Argentina and Brazil who are white and they say they're latina. So I don't understand I guess.

Some Latinas/Latinos are of Portuguese descent rather than Spanish.

Edited March 20th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king

As someone unfamiliar with the comics I just want to say:



Also did they explain why there were other "human" characters with the Kree, such as Jude Law's character? Because I really don't understand why they exist and I feel that needed explaining...

ALSO!



On the whole an ok movie. Not great, not terrible, I'd place it comfortably in the middle of the MCU somewhere.

Posted March 20th by Moonray
Moonray
 

There are also people in Argentina and Brazil who are white and they say they're latina. So I don't understand I guess.

Some Latinas/Latinos are of Portuguese descent rather than Spanish.

Hispanic refers to people who speak Spanish and/or are descended from Spanish-speaking populations, while Latino refers to people who are from or descended from people from Latin America. The color of ones skin has nothing to do with it. I am pretty white my self.

Brazillians would be Latinos but they would not be Hispanic.

Posted March 20th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

It would be helpful if there was a gender-neutral catch all word. But I guess even though I'm white you could say I'm English-Canadian/Irish Canadian and complicate things if you want to. Latin America is so huge that it's almost silly to call someone a Latina or Latino anyway because it's so vague. You don't know if they're from Chile or Mexico or Cuba based on that description. They might even be American.

Then there's places like Jamaica which has an English-speaking black community but it's still kinda part of Latin America and it makes things confusing. Probably better to just say "Mexican Girl" if you know she's from there rather than calling her Latina and making it super vague. The same way I'd be a "Canadian Man" if I did something notable enough to be in the newspaper.

Edited March 20th by I killed Mufasa
I killed Mufasa
long live the king




As for the Nick Fury reasoning in The Avengers: I'm not very inclined to get into those types of things, nor do I view them really as "plot holes." It is so obvious when you rewatch pretty much everything that - on the most part - they kinda totally are making things up as they go. There is some building, of course. Guardians Vol. 2 builds off of 1. Cap: Civil War - the Cap parts anyway - build off of The Winter Soldier. Et cetera. But there isn't really a very clear and specific direct flight plan for these franchises overall. They obviously drop post-credits scenes and usually passing references to "build" to Thanos, but even then, they clearly didn't know they were going to make Infinity War the way they did when they made Avengers.

(Personally, I think this is great. It truly does capture the feeling of reading monthly comics.)

Posted March 20th by Jet Presto

The Nick Fury thing was just a joking nitpick. I just wanted to point it out :)

But did I miss something on why Jude Law is playing a human looking character who lives with the Kree or did they just not explain it???

Posted March 20th by Moonray
Moonray
 

They didn't. I just assumed it had to do with his contract.

Posted March 20th by Jet Presto

I realize, too, that not all Kree are depicted as blue in the comics. Yon-Rogg originally did not. Sometimes in other decades he has been. Also thinking about that because the original Captain Marvel, Mar-Vell, was also always depicted as white instead of blue despite being Kree also.

Comics are weird.

Posted March 20th by Jet Presto

when it comes to agents of shield the kree were experimenting on humans and making them inhuman. not sure if this would be a spoiler let me know and Ill tag it (they made this revelation back in 2015?)

I dont remember if they were using inhumans as weapons or doing it to advance the human race.(pretty sure they were doing it to wage war against the skrulls.)

they also tie in Hydra as one of the inhumans created by the kree was super OP. It was banished by other inhumans and hydra was trying to bring it back.

Edited March 20th by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 

So I'm not sure the "overpowered" thing is quite accurate. Compared to Earth-based heroes, yes, but that is why they should keep her in the cosmic universe. She wouldn't be able to take on Annihilus on her own, for example. (Actually, I wonder if that's the next big event, now that I'm thinking about it...)


Yes, I'm sure that they could easily find threats for her in the cosmic realm, which is why I qualified that under the assumption that she would be staying on Earth. It would make way more sense to use her (and Thor, if he's still sticking around as well) in space purely based on power reasons, but Feige has said that she's going to be the face of the franchise moving forward. I guess that doesn't have to be as the leader of the Avengers, and theoretically they could shift their focus to a more cosmic one, but it doesn't seem to make much sense to do so when they've just released enormously popular heroes like T'Challa and Spider-Man that are very grounded on Earth. Plus, as a personal preference, I'm not all that excited at the prospect of another Thanos-level threat like Galactus or Annihilus any time soon, though maybe some fans are.

On the Kree:



But did I miss something on why Jude Law is playing a human looking character who lives with the Kree or did they just not explain it???


This confused me, too, and I kept expecting at least a hand-wave explanation. I wound up looking it up. Apparently the non-blue Kree like Yon-Rogg, Mar-Vell, and Korath (had no idea he was supposed to be a Kree before this movie) are the results of interbreeding with other species, while the blue ones are the "purebloods." Makes it a lot easier for them to pass Vers off as being a Kree, I suppose. And thinking about it now, I guess it shouldn't really seem weird to me--after all, humans have different skin colors, so why couldn't aliens?

As for the Fury thing, I think he was just referring to a story that Thor would be aware was true, as opposed to one the Avengers could easily think he was making up. After all, it's not like he's never lied to them before!

Posted March 22nd by white lancer

I think Galactus could be cool because of the Heralds. The action with them would obviously work better than with Galactus. Annihilus would be kinda cool because of the Annihilation Wave, although I suppose at this point it would be pretty generic. CGI armies of enemies is pretty common, and was a kind of tired trope even before it showed up in Infinity War.

Posted March 23rd by Jet Presto

Yeah, I mean, I'm not opposed to galactic-level threats in general. Just would prefer that they're few and far between, so films like Infinity War/Endgame feel more special. And I thought Ant-Man and the Wasp was a nice palate cleanser after IW with its smaller and much more personal stakes. That one and Homecoming were pretty much the only ones since Civil War not to have the fate of at least the entire planet at stake.

Edited March 25th by white lancer

Well Galactus and the Heralds don't have to be a galactic threat. She could even just have to face off against Gladiator, who I thiiiiiink is Kree, if I recall correctly.

So I think Captain Marvel can very well still be the "face of the Avengers" while not really spending terribly much time on Earth. Earth has a tendency of drawing cosmic threats its way, for some reason.

There's also room for a Spider-Man 2-esque story, where she struggles to really control her power for various reasons. They sort of even accidentally laid the foundation for that in the first film.

I'm not terribly worried about the power creep people keep discuss as a problem. But I suppose in large part it's because we have decades of the comics industry that did that very thing and haven't really had any trouble with stakes or enemies to throw at our heroes.

Posted March 26th by Jet Presto
Load next page Load rest of pages
Reply to: Captain Marvel Review
Enter your message here

Site Rules | Complaints Process | Give Feedback Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2019 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on