Does Anyone Want Brie Larson To Play Capt Marvel Again?

[Damselbinder]

wait

Isn't Captain Marvel captured like... twice in her movie? She's not that invincible is she?

I have mostly deleted this movie from my brain though so if I'm wrong I'll only disembowel myself a teensy bit

The Kree had a device on the back of her neck that restricted her powers. Once she took that off she was OP.

Right but

Okay so there clearly ARE things that can inhibit or weaken her then

Yeah just like Kryptonite stops superman. But is the stopping of the character a rare edge case in which someone needs a special McGuffin?

Its not that Marvel is OP, its that Marvel is OP for the room she is in. Like playing chess against 3 year olds. I'm sure Hulk could beat her to hamburger meat, he's done so in the comics. Its that it takes a Hulk level person to do that so either have that in the story or don't have her be so OP.

Kind of like making a movie with Superman and all he does is deal with street level thugs. Not very exciting. The movie would have been good if they had a good boss fight, something with risk.

Sadly this is what I think will happen with the new Black Adam movie. No real threat. Just power tripping.

Right but

Didn't she escape that restraint on her powers at the very end of the movie? Like - at the climax?

[Mr. X]

Right but

Didn't she escape that restraint on her powers at the very end of the movie? Like - at the climax?

Fighting who? some lackies? Someone in her head? Who was the big boss? Her mentor who was a nobody that she could have beat with her powers restrained? And then she goes after the Kree fleet who harm her in no way, she smashes all their missiles and they leave.

Where was the risk/ The conflict? The stakes?

Yeah so at the end she became Superman vs some Kree lackies. That's no exciting story telling. Its a power trip but not good story telling. Super Sayan 5 Goku vs Krillian.

[Damselbinder]

Can a finale not be a sort of satisfying victory lap?


Like, shit, man, I didn't even like this fucking movie, but aren't you kind of shifting the goalposts? Going from "oh she's too invincible" to "oh she was too invincible in the last five minutes so the climax was a bit bland"

[argento]

I'm not hugely familiar with CM, so forgive my ignorance but what is her weakness? I assume she has one

The most oft utilized in the comics actually does tend to be some form of power drain. Her powers work 'something' like a battery. She's charged with an unimaginable amount of energy, hitting her with certain kinds of energy actually makes her stronger (I'm pretty sure that's what the 'Binary' form is) but to make her weaker there's usually some kind of 'syphoning' occurring or else they result to some vague form of 'powers on the fritz' for mysterious reasons.

Yes it is true, but nobody explains why it happens or I didn't find it. When she dies in "Ms Marvel #37", energy is released from her. It would have to be explained on a subatomic level, somehow releasing energy during the process. Her inner remains carry the energy out of her through a combination of heat transfer processes. This process had to have destroyed the entire planet. What is impossible is the reverse process as in #41.

[Femina]

There's legit nothing wrong with her power level AT ALL. The plot had a vague idea it was going for and it just didn't pull it off well. The point of the climax wasn't 'overcome the seemingly invincible foe' sure... but it doesn't have to be. The 'climax' of the film was Carol standing up. That's it. At it's most basic level. She stood up when the people keeping her down were keeping her down... the problem wasn't the climax at all. The failure of the climax was the rest of the film. Instead of wasting half the runtime with a lame 'amnesia' thing that makes connecting with the protagonist difficult, it should have been doing the origin thing. The opening scene should have been the bit of her as a child being knocked down. We should have watched all those 'flashback' clips of her getting knocked down as actual moments of the film... then cut from those scenes to the aftermath without actually showing her standing back up. Just like, she's knocked down as a little girl looks up frustrated at the bullies... cut to mom cleaning her cuts and bruises just like 'you shouldn't be fighting honey.' THEN at the end when she's down on the ground cause of the kree control device and she's gotta stand back up we do the little montage of her standing up from childhood to adulthood. Boom, you got payoff to the little idea you have, Carol Danvers - the superheroine who always gets back up... villains beware cause knocking her down isn't gonna save you. It's still not the greatest plot ever obviously but that's how you properly do the thing they were TRYING to do.

What they really SHOULD of done was just had Carol in space already, flying around being a galactic hero... maybe just a scene or two of her remembering her earth origins so viewers get 'oh okay so she's from earth still' and then... have fucking Thanos in it! This is a movie set between Endgame 1 and 2! Have Carol fight Thanos as her main foe...... and only claim a 'technical victory' that costs a lot more than was worth it and Thanos gets something he needs anyway so that she's got more beef with him that can pay off in Endgame... and then she should have BEEN IN ENDGAME and not just been a strange not-quite cameo character.

[Mr. X]

Can a finale not be a sort of satisfying victory lap?


Like, shit, man, I didn't even like this fucking movie, but aren't you kind of shifting the goalposts? Going from "oh she's too invincible" to "oh she was too invincible in the last five minutes so the climax was a bit bland"

Yes she was too invincible in the last five minutes making it bland and there was no real challenge. Her boss fight was against a guy who she could have beat at her depowered state. The Man of Steel movie had him fight a whole ship of Kryptonians plus a world engine.

"I didn't even like this fucking movie"
Ok what didn't you like? could be the same thing I didn't like you just can't put it into words.

[Mr. X]

The point of the climax wasn't 'overcome the seemingly invincible foe' sure... but it doesn't have to be.

I disagree. Humans have not fundamentally changed and neither has the concepts of story telling. Sure you could have a story of her "standing up" but is that interesting? No. It could also be a story of her making egg salad but is that interesting? No. You even point out she should have fought Thanos at some point. Yeah that makes sense. THAT would make a good story cause there are stakes and risk.

This was an ok movie. I think it only did $900 mil cause of when it was positioned. And yes they spent way too much time on some amnesia plot, low action and a lot of chatting. I also think coming after Infinity War hurt her movie cause Infinity War left everyone in a high and her movie was kind of bland with no real connection to anything important.

[RedMountain]

As someone who didn't care in the slightest for the film and didn't like the way they just made her the "strongest" out of nowhere despite zero establishment of her character, I'd like to see what she could do with an actual writer and good script/supporting cast. I was always a fan of the character in the comics, pretty much read every iteration of her character at least up until the Civil War stuff in Marvel, which is when I tuned out when they started making so many characters act completely out of character, but even the initial run of Captain Marvel in the comics was pretty good to me when she was dealing with getting her new powers and the aftermath and medical issues that came with it. My main gripe was as usual the MCU throws out good source material and does whatever TF they want with the story/origin, but that aside I just thought it was a terrible movie overall and everyone in it had a very lackluster performance aside from the cat. I was actually pissed my buddy convinced me to go see it over Alita. At the end of the day though she should get a chance to give a good portrayal of the character and show what she can do. I could care less about a celebrity's politics or views, I just want to see an entertaining film and if she can provide that in the role than that's awesome. It's the same with people like Tom Cruise. I just laugh at the people who skip all his movies and say he should be cancelled over the Scientology stuff, like who TF cares? He makes some of the most entertaining and fun movies, to me at least, I don't care what he does on his personal time. If you are so caught up in what celebrities think about politics and other things you have bigger fish you could be frying in your life. Kind of similar to the way this forum is going, we are trying way to hard to ruin all the fun involved with the entertainment in our lives.

[sugarcoater]

As someone who didn't care in the slightest for the film and didn't like the way they just made her the "strongest" out of nowhere despite zero establishment of her character, I'd like to see what she could do with an actual writer and good script/supporting cast. I was always a fan of the character in the comics, pretty much read every iteration of her character at least up until the Civil War stuff in Marvel, which is when I tuned out when they started making so many characters act completely out of character, but even the initial run of Captain Marvel in the comics was pretty good to me when she was dealing with getting her new powers and the aftermath and medical issues that came with it. My main gripe was as usual the MCU throws out good source material and does whatever TF they want with the story/origin, but that aside I just thought it was a terrible movie overall and everyone in it had a very lackluster performance aside from the cat. I was actually pissed my buddy convinced me to go see it over Alita. At the end of the day though she should get a chance to give a good portrayal of the character and show what she can do. I could care less about a celebrity's politics or views, I just want to see an entertaining film and if she can provide that in the role than that's awesome. It's the same with people like Tom Cruise. I just laugh at the people who skip all his movies and say he should be cancelled over the Scientology stuff, like who TF cares? He makes some of the most entertaining and fun movies, to me at least, I don't care what he does on his personal time. If you are so caught up in what celebrities think about politics and other things you have bigger fish you could be frying in your life. Kind of similar to the way this forum is going, we are trying way to hard to ruin all the fun involved with the entertainment in our lives.

I agree with a number of your points. If I may slightly differ with one point, it would be the matter of "who cares" of an entertainers politics. It's a bad move--though certainly one they are entitled to make, just like anyone--to make political statements. But the problem is that some political views will be seen as, to use the mot du jour, problematic. There are perspectives that are polarizing, with good reason. When an entertainer decides they want to share their views with the masses, they naturally risk turning off a portion of their potential consumers. It becomes hard to disassociate a person from their views, especially if those views seem to be targeting you. Tom Cruise's faith in scientology does not demand to infringe upon my lifestyle as it is a form of a religion and does not require anything of me. But quite a few entertainers espouse views that, if enacted, would definitely impact my life in a negative way. When those entertainers use their platform to promote policies that would adversely affect me, I find it hard to ignore. I find it even harder to feel good about supporting them and giving them an even larger platform on which to promote those policies. (And sure, a ticket purchase here or a movie download there won't do much of anything on an individual basis, but perhaps if many feel the same...) In the end, it's usually just some vapid entertainment or somewhat enjoyable distraction and little more. If an entertainer is going to grandstand some harmful policy, I am fine going without their entertainment--there's plenty out there anyhow. I don't have to be "so caught up in what celebrities think about politics", the celebrities make it easy to know what they think and it's just as easy to skip over their entertainment fare for something else. Not that big a deal either way.
Just my two cents.

[RedMountain]

As someone who didn't care in the slightest for the film and didn't like the way they just made her the "strongest" out of nowhere despite zero establishment of her character, I'd like to see what she could do with an actual writer and good script/supporting cast. I was always a fan of the character in the comics, pretty much read every iteration of her character at least up until the Civil War stuff in Marvel, which is when I tuned out when they started making so many characters act completely out of character, but even the initial run of Captain Marvel in the comics was pretty good to me when she was dealing with getting her new powers and the aftermath and medical issues that came with it. My main gripe was as usual the MCU throws out good source material and does whatever TF they want with the story/origin, but that aside I just thought it was a terrible movie overall and everyone in it had a very lackluster performance aside from the cat. I was actually pissed my buddy convinced me to go see it over Alita. At the end of the day though she should get a chance to give a good portrayal of the character and show what she can do. I could care less about a celebrity's politics or views, I just want to see an entertaining film and if she can provide that in the role than that's awesome. It's the same with people like Tom Cruise. I just laugh at the people who skip all his movies and say he should be cancelled over the Scientology stuff, like who TF cares? He makes some of the most entertaining and fun movies, to me at least, I don't care what he does on his personal time. If you are so caught up in what celebrities think about politics and other things you have bigger fish you could be frying in your life. Kind of similar to the way this forum is going, we are trying way to hard to ruin all the fun involved with the entertainment in our lives.

I agree with a number of your points. If I may slightly differ with one point, it would be the matter of "who cares" of an entertainers politics. It's a bad move--though certainly one they are entitled to make, just like anyone--to make political statements. But the problem is that some political views will be seen as, to use the mot du jour, problematic. There are perspectives that are polarizing, with good reason. When an entertainer decides they want to share their views with the masses, they naturally risk turning off a portion of their potential consumers. It becomes hard to disassociate a person from their views, especially if those views seem to be targeting you. Tom Cruise's faith in scientology does not demand to infringe upon my lifestyle as it is a form of a religion and does not require anything of me. But quite a few entertainers espouse views that, if enacted, would definitely impact my life in a negative way. When those entertainers use their platform to promote policies that would adversely affect me, I find it hard to ignore. I find it even harder to feel good about supporting them and giving them an even larger platform on which to promote those policies. (And sure, a ticket purchase here or a movie download there won't do much of anything on an individual basis, but perhaps if many feel the same...) In the end, it's usually just some vapid entertainment or somewhat enjoyable distraction and little more. If an entertainer is going to grandstand some harmful policy, I am fine going without their entertainment--there's plenty out there anyhow. I don't have to be "so caught up in what celebrities think about politics", the celebrities make it easy to know what they think and it's just as easy to skip over their entertainment fare for something else. Not that big a deal either way.
Just my two cents.

Yeah I get that, I think my issue is that I'm just too old to care anymore and I've watched the world lose their absolute minds over the last decade or so, so I wind up tuning most of it out. The constant overreactions on every single topic from what I'm guessing is just a vocal minority just really get on my nerves. If a film looks entertaining I'll probably go see it.

[lionbadger]

There's legit nothing wrong with her power level AT ALL. The plot had a vague idea it was going for and it just didn't pull it off well. The point of the climax wasn't 'overcome the seemingly invincible foe' sure... but it doesn't have to be. The 'climax' of the film was Carol standing up. That's it. At it's most basic level. She stood up when the people keeping her down were keeping her down... the problem wasn't the climax at all.

This

Also there's a clear bit of some people just wanted to hate the film/character/actress going on (thread is dripping with it). Which blows my mind, you finally get big budget recurring heroine movies and the very people who should giggling with glee are all "I want Iron man in another do everything because tech magic suit. Mental.

[tallyho]

You don't have to like things just because they are made.

It's fine to not like the script the suit the plot, the acting or the actress if it comes to it. (I hate Renee Zellweger - both of them)

I do find Larson quite expressionless in a lot of the promotional material and I have a had a recorded copy of this film for 4 months but not seen it yet as it just doesn't interest me enough to watch it. But all the hoo-ha about her being grumpy due to a couple of candid on set shots where she wasn't smiling was ridiculous.

Whilst I don't much care if another film is made , if it's got a good story then go for it. If it's another cash cow then don't bother

[Femina]

The point of the climax wasn't 'overcome the seemingly invincible foe' sure... but it doesn't have to be.

I disagree. Humans have not fundamentally changed and neither has the concepts of story telling. Sure you could have a story of her "standing up" but is that interesting? No. It could also be a story of her making egg salad but is that interesting? No. You even point out she should have fought Thanos at some point. Yeah that makes sense. THAT would make a good story cause there are stakes and risk.

This was an ok movie. I think it only did $900 mil cause of when it was positioned. And yes they spent way too much time on some amnesia plot, low action and a lot of chatting. I also think coming after Infinity War hurt her movie cause Infinity War left everyone in a high and her movie was kind of bland with no real connection to anything important.

Well to be fair my Thanos thing was the movie I feel they ought to have made overall for the franchise right? Like that's the film that belongs sandwiched between the big climax films if you're gonna break up the climax films with prequel films to begin with. They could have used it to add yet more weight to Endgame and all.

But we're gonna agree to disagree on point 1 up there. An action movie doesn't HAVE to climax with the heroes being beat around and just barely eking out a win... that's often a GOOD Clmax yes, it's tried and tested no one would argue it isn't... but it is not, nor has it ever been, the sole mode of action fantasy climax. Just look at the old Western? The hero wanders into town, he's better, faster than everyone for two acts of the film. At the end of Act 2 he usually gets gets beat to ship by the villain gang mostly voluntarily doing something he knows was stupid but 'for the right reasons'.... then in act 3 he returns and fucks shit up and handily defeats the gang boss in a duel.

Realistically Carol is only 'super Saiyan' for about five minutes at the end of the film. She DID just finish her struggle. She was captured and trapped with the Supreme Intelligence in a computer simulation where she wasn't necessarily all powerful. THAT was her final battle... Ripping off the inhibitor and dunking on Ronin was just Captain Marvel winning the duel at the very end.

You don't have to like things just because they are made.

It's fine to not like the script the suit the plot, the acting or the actress if it comes to it. (I hate Renee Zellweger - both of them)

I do find Larson quite expressionless in a lot of the promotional material and I have a had a recorded copy of this film for 4 months but not seen it yet as it just doesn't interest me enough to watch it. But all the hoo-ha about her being grumpy due to a couple of candid on set shots where she wasn't smiling was ridiculous.

Whilst I don't much care if another film is made , if it's got a good story then go for it. If it's another cash cow then don't bother

She's literally an amnesiac super soldier character for the first 2/3's of the film. My strong suspicion is that the direction was 'be an amnesiac super soldier in this scene' and there's a strong history of films about emotionless super soldiers to draw from in the action catalog PARTICULARLY the 90's action movies which Captain Marvel wanted to be something of a send up to (though they didn't succeed that well in that arena either). I'll just note again that Brie Larson is an Oscar award winning actress. She's been in a lot of films in a LOT of different genres and roles. She wasn't just not smiling to piss off a bunch of weirdo sexists who apparently can't even look at a woman for two hours if she's not constantly smiling for some reason, but her CAPABILITY to smile was never in question. If the script had called for Carol to smile a lot she would have. Carol Danvers has ALWAYS been a little bit of a 'no nonsense' character to begin with. The character approaches situations like a Career military officer, she's never been a quippy 'spider-man' sort beyond the base amount of quipping necessary for a comic book panel.

[Mr. X]

There's legit nothing wrong with her power level AT ALL. The plot had a vague idea it was going for and it just didn't pull it off well. The point of the climax wasn't 'overcome the seemingly invincible foe' sure... but it doesn't have to be. The 'climax' of the film was Carol standing up. That's it. At it's most basic level. She stood up when the people keeping her down were keeping her down... the problem wasn't the climax at all.

This

Also there's a clear bit of some people just wanted to hate the film/character/actress going on (thread is dripping with it). Which blows my mind, you finally get big budget recurring heroine movies and the very people who should giggling with glee are all "I want Iron man in another do everything because tech magic suit. Mental.

Yes we should like all ice cream flavors cause they are all "ice cream". everything is interchangeable with everything else. Pee Wee Herman is a man. Henry Cavil is a man. So women should find Herman as sexy as Cavil cause - they are both men.

Are YOU fapping to Brie Larson? Is that your hot ticket? What's in your super heroine fetish bag? Or do you have this thing called preferences?

Yes you replace my fine columbian coffee with Foldgers crystals and I'll go Chris Farley on you.

[lionbadger]

Yes we should like all ice cream flavors cause they are all "ice cream". everything is interchangeable with everything else. Pee Wee Herman is a man. Henry Cavil is a man. So women should find Herman as sexy as Cavil cause - they are both men.

Are YOU fapping to Brie Larson? Is that your hot ticket? What's in your super heroine fetish bag? Or do you have this thing called preferences?

Yes you replace my fine columbian coffee with Foldgers crystals and I'll go Chris Farley on you.

I'm not American so I don't have the weird binary world view that you need to be one team or the other.

You cannot read this thread without seeing, and to be honest your response feels the same, that some people decided to hate the movie before it came out then tried to back fill a reason. Bree Larson would not be my first choice for captain marvel, I suspect she is not yours and you're huffy that they never went with Ms Marvel.

Marvel had no heroine movies before this and there is more to gain in a superheroine fetish community in asking for more superheroine movies than there is in tearing down a standard fare marvel movie with the usual weak villain and easy to understand plot.

You mention peewee and cavail but your own logic doesn't even get you bree larsson, it gets you cavail and peewee. Fine if that's what you want, I think you have plenty to choose from. Me, I want more heroine movies because playing it safe will erode over time and spin offs and copycats will crop up from the wider ecosystem

[Femina]

There's legit nothing wrong with her power level AT ALL. The plot had a vague idea it was going for and it just didn't pull it off well. The point of the climax wasn't 'overcome the seemingly invincible foe' sure... but it doesn't have to be. The 'climax' of the film was Carol standing up. That's it. At it's most basic level. She stood up when the people keeping her down were keeping her down... the problem wasn't the climax at all.

This

Also there's a clear bit of some people just wanted to hate the film/character/actress going on (thread is dripping with it). Which blows my mind, you finally get big budget recurring heroine movies and the very people who should giggling with glee are all "I want Iron man in another do everything because tech magic suit. Mental.

Yes we should like all ice cream flavors cause they are all "ice cream". everything is interchangeable with everything else. Pee Wee Herman is a man. Henry Cavil is a man. So women should find Herman as sexy as Cavil cause - they are both men.

Are YOU fapping to Brie Larson? Is that your hot ticket? What's in your super heroine fetish bag? Or do you have this thing called preferences?

Yes you replace my fine columbian coffee with Foldgers crystals and I'll go Chris Farley on you.

Captain Marvel was very different from the ordinary shit you're talking about with your usual (fast becoming interchangeable with all your posts) interchangeable argument. Captain Marvel was PRE-receipted quite poorly... and it was all over bogus nonsense.

You ARE cutting your OWN legs off? Does nobody realize this? Does everyone here literally believe that it should be slinky shiny spandex and high cut leotards or NOTHING?... from the GROUND FLOOR? Does nobody here understand the concept of baby steps? MALE superhero action shit has been baby stepped. We have had fifty years of male dominated shit easing us into the position we're in now. The way the arguments on this website would have it, we'd be LUCKY to get one Superheroine film a fucking decade... one every TWENTY YEARS maybe even.

You want the glittery purple suited Batgirl film? You want Wonder woman with a rediculously high cut leotard? Then you have to wade through the baby steps. Cause I promise you all right now, if your response BEFORE A THING EVEN RELEASES to anything to do with Superheroines is 'Not sexy enough for ME' then you're fanning the flames of the thing that's burning this thing we love to the ground. Is the fetish going to subsist on 60's produced television for the next fifty years? UNLIKELY. This IS the superhero resurgence period and it's at LEAST half over, and thanks to attitudes like this, it's been 90% male dominated... and if the treatment y'all gave to Captain Marvel is the norm, there won't be ANY superheroines in fifty years when the genre resurfaces from its next dark age. You get skintight catsuits and V-cut's on the big screen when society is COMFORTABLE with it... so help make it comfortable... or go sit down and be quiet while the rest of us consume the shit we like... but bitching about it in this non-critical manner before it ever releases is only EVER going to discourage the very thing you're claiming to want.

Captain Marvel was hung out to dry here half a year before the film even came out. You tell me why Warner Bros. should give you Supergirl in a short skirt and risk the publics backlash just to please US when we didn't even give the first female lead superheroine film made in fourty years the courtesy of actually WATCHING it before we threw it in the garbage? All you've done is marked yourselves as a non-profit demographic.

[Mr. X]

Me, I want more heroine movies because playing it safe will erode over time and spin offs and copycats will crop up from the wider ecosystem

But that hasn't happened. If you look at movies from the 70s and the 80-s compared to today the standards have become MORE prudish, not less.

Oh but there is one area where its become more relaxed - men going shirtless... yeah now that took off. Brie Larson in a baggy halloween costume but Chris Hemsworth all jacked and naked... yeah real appealing to super heroine fetish people.

[Mr. X]

You ARE cutting your OWN legs off? Does nobody realize this? Does everyone here literally believe that it should be slinky shiny spandex and high cut leotards or NOTHING?... from the GROUND FLOOR? Does nobody here understand the concept of baby steps? MALE superhero action shit has been baby stepped. We have had fifty years of male dominated shit easing us into the position we're in now. The way the arguments on this website would have it, we'd be LUCKY to get one Superheroine film a fucking decade... one every TWENTY YEARS maybe even.

What? First you complain about my complaint about interchangeability then you make an argument about equal representation. As for 50 years... we had this IN THE 70s and 80s already. WHAT BABY STEPS? The old prudish conservatives had compelling erotic movies and TV show. Or don't your remember actresses like Sybil Danning etc? What is with the lustrum-nesia?

We already had male dominated stuff in the past. ITS ALREADY DONE. We already had erotic style super heroine stuff. WTF do you think we've been idolizing and fapping off to for the last 40 years? We had Raquel Welch and Linda Carter and all those Bond women etc.

As for male stuff. Hemsworth naked, Cavil shirtless for 20 minutes in Justice League. Mamoa shirtless. Lots of gratuitous shirts off scenes.

Sorry but your generation and your ideological views is a GIANT prudish step BACKWARD. And there are no turns.

Also the Japanese market doesn't share your view of "turns" and throttled control.

Just explain who the fuck is hurt by a busty heroines in skin tight costumes? Who? Not women, they are empowered and women don't care when trans women dress provocative... so who is hurt? Cause the same social police don't care when jacked dudes are doing shirtless scenes.

baby steps... give me a break. 50 years ago we were running... someone today broke everyone's knees.

[Femina]

Me, I want more heroine movies because playing it safe will erode over time and spin offs and copycats will crop up from the wider ecosystem

But that hasn't happened. If you look at movies from the 70s and the 80-s compared to today the standards have become MORE prudish, not less.

Oh but there is one area where its become more relaxed - men going shirtless... yeah now that took off. Brie Larson in a baggy halloween costume but Chris Hemsworth all jacked and naked... yeah real appealing to super heroine fetish people.

Because people aren't comfortable with it! Because they've had 50 years of acceptable shirtless men on screen! The perceptions aren't equivalent! They're different flavors of ice cream Mr. X. Not INTERCHANGABLE. Equalizing these things doesn't happen over night Mr. X! In the 60's they tried to camp it up, they tried to give us Batgirl and WW and it didn't sell because that shit wasn't popular enough. It took comic books forty years of grind to reach how large it was in the 90's... and then dwindled down for a decade again before we got this explosion. If the attitude continues to be BEFORE THE FILMS EVEN RELEASE "Nah fuck this character, 'Her ass isn't big enough'" or false flags of political backlash on the things BEFORE ITS EVEN SEEN then there will be NOTHING to draw from.

If we want nothing, fine, continue how we've been going. You want sexy leading women on screen? First you need to help legitimize leading women on screen to begin with. You need the public to be used to it, to accept it, and once its the NORM, once its the 50/50 split that is the population THEN, when WW walks out with bare legs the public doesn't go 'ooof.... how crude' it goes 'how powerful!' the same way it does for shirtless Cavil... and you get more of it. You Get 'Spider-GIRL' being gassed by the Green Goblin, tied up and interrogated on the rooftops. When it's LEGITIMATE, you get the stuff you want because society doesn't balk at it anymore.

That's the difference. Shirtless Cavil isn't only responded to by women (and some men) fanning themselves to cool off... it ALSO strikes them as 'look how powerful he is!" When a shirtless woman walks on stage they may get the fan waving, but the second response is simply to denote her as the object of their arousal. We don't receive the same response of LEGITIMACY in our bodies that men are privy too. A Shirtless Cavil is an Adonis. A shirtless woman is lewd bordering on inappropriate. The perceptions aren't equivalent. They aren't Ice cream flavors. They aren't Interchangeable.... and until they are, you're not ever going to get the thing you want.

You ARE cutting your OWN legs off? Does nobody realize this? Does everyone here literally believe that it should be slinky shiny spandex and high cut leotards or NOTHING?... from the GROUND FLOOR? Does nobody here understand the concept of baby steps? MALE superhero action shit has been baby stepped. We have had fifty years of male dominated shit easing us into the position we're in now. The way the arguments on this website would have it, we'd be LUCKY to get one Superheroine film a fucking decade... one every TWENTY YEARS maybe even.

What? First you complain about my complaint about interchangeability then you make an argument about equal representation. As for 50 years... we had this IN THE 70s and 80s already. WHAT BABY STEPS? The old prudish conservatives had compelling erotic movies and TV show. Or don't your remember actresses like Sybil Danning etc? What is with the lustrum-nesia?

I was speaking about the PRE-reception of Captain Marvel particularly up there... my dig at your 'interchangeability' argument remains simply that... it's been like you're ONLY argument for going on half a year now. I see it so much it's become one of those eye-rolling things. Apologies though if I'm not being clear enough. YOUR argument always seems to be that men and women aren't interchangeable 'therefore nothing is wrong'............ mine isn't. I agree that men and women aren't interchangeable by default. There's strengths and weaknesses to draw from in embracing our differences....... but where representation is concerned I'd argue we absolutely should be interchangeable. There's no reason that there shouldn't be an even 50/50 split of action films staring men and women. Romance films staring men and women. Comedies staring men and women etc. The world is split down the middle 50/50 between men and women, and we all deserve equivalent treatment of representation... and in EVERY Genre. The 'non-interchangeability' would effect what those films are about and how we go about making them... Superpowers muddy this somewhat here though it must be said... since Captain Marvel, for instance, has no issue whatsoever with tossing a truck as far as the hulk.

[Mr. X]

spiderwomancover.jpg (47.31 KiB) Viewed 791 times

THIS is considered sooooo controversial as to need censorship TODAY in the grand, brave new enlightened world when we had MORE risque stuff like this in the 70s... the era of crazy prudish conservative nutters. Brie Larson dressed like that? Nope.

BUT

tatiana2.jpg (71.6 KiB) Viewed 791 times

This is your baby steps? Nope no obvious double standard here? No, of course no one sees the double standard...

Tell you what. I'll be really fair here. Show me the modern female equivalent of the male picture I just posted in the last 10 years. And we're supposed to fap off to this?

brielarsoncaptmarvel.jpg (100.33 KiB) Viewed 791 times

I call bullshit on this grand enlightened age. More prudish than the jerk conservatives that I dealt with in the 70s. Bunch of busy body, social police, church ladies.

[Femina]

To be fair... I've never called us a Grand Enlightened age? We aren't. I don't argue there aren't double standards either. There are. Both ways. I get it, you're not only talking to just ME on the site... but I promise you, when you ARE talking to me, you're not talking to someone who thinks we've got it aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaall figured out. No dig, just.... letting you know.

Your shots up there are just of actors TODAY. What about forty years ago. You'll still find shirtless guys... but then and now, there's no official shots of shirtless women right? It is fair here to denote the 'non-interchangeability' argument. Female 'sexy' is inherently different from male 'sexy' thus, a shirtless woman IS different from a shirtless man in the spaces that actively arouse the opposite gender. So skintight spiderwoman there with her but strutting up could potentially be equivocated to shirtless Hemsworth if you really wanted to somehow and maybe it IS bullshit that ones fine and the others not.... I don't necessarily disagree with that? I'm speaking more from the platform of how we GET there vs where we are.

So then why is this acceptable while Captain Marvel's outfit isn't? Both ways goeth no? Men don't HAVE to be sexy to be legitimate in this sphere... they're ALLOWED to be without complaint or controversy. Should it not be so on the other side of the coin? How do we GET to that space?

............ That's also just the production costume.... Bear in mind MOST costumes look a bit dumpy just 'as is' on a film set cause none of the finish has gone into it. The actual costume on screen doesn't really have the same effect as that production shot. It's still not an overtly sexualized costume by any means... but it doesn't come off as baggy on the screen. It just comes off as 'uniform'.

[tallyho]

She's literally an amnesiac super soldier character for the first 2/3's of the film. My strong suspicion is that the direction was 'be an amnesiac super soldier in this scene' and there's a strong history of films about emotionless super soldiers to draw from in the action catalog PARTICULARLY the 90's action movies which Captain Marvel wanted to be something of a send up to (though they didn't succeed that well in that arena either). I'll just note again that Brie Larson is an Oscar award winning actress. She's been in a lot of films in a LOT of different genres and roles. She wasn't just not smiling to piss off a bunch of weirdo sexists who apparently can't even look at a woman for two hours if she's not constantly smiling for some reason, but her CAPABILITY to smile was never in question. If the script had called for Carol to smile a lot she would have. Carol Danvers has ALWAYS been a little bit of a 'no nonsense' character to begin with. The character approaches situations like a Career military officer, she's never been a quippy 'spider-man' sort beyond the base amount of quipping necessary for a comic book panel.

I said in the PROMOTIONAL material. I get that the performance of an amnesiac would require you to look clueless or confused most of the time in the film but why use that to sell the film when a blank expression just makes her look bored or disinterested in posters and stills?
Smiling not smiling I don't care , it's irrelevant to me but at least look like you have a range rather than blank emotionless stare in poster after flyer after still. I don't blame on her for that I blame the marketing people , all I am saying is they havent done her any favours. When you see clips from the movie then of her with a blank emotionless stare, it just makes it look dull and uninteresting and reinforces your perception or mis conception of the film or her performance

[Femina]

She's literally an amnesiac super soldier character for the first 2/3's of the film. My strong suspicion is that the direction was 'be an amnesiac super soldier in this scene' and there's a strong history of films about emotionless super soldiers to draw from in the action catalog PARTICULARLY the 90's action movies which Captain Marvel wanted to be something of a send up to (though they didn't succeed that well in that arena either). I'll just note again that Brie Larson is an Oscar award winning actress. She's been in a lot of films in a LOT of different genres and roles. She wasn't just not smiling to piss off a bunch of weirdo sexists who apparently can't even look at a woman for two hours if she's not constantly smiling for some reason, but her CAPABILITY to smile was never in question. If the script had called for Carol to smile a lot she would have. Carol Danvers has ALWAYS been a little bit of a 'no nonsense' character to begin with. The character approaches situations like a Career military officer, she's never been a quippy 'spider-man' sort beyond the base amount of quipping necessary for a comic book panel.

I said in the PROMOTIONAL material. I get that the performance of an amnesiac would require you to look clueless or confused most of the time in the film but why use that to sell the film when a blank expression just makes her look bored or disinterested in posters and stills?
Smiling not smiling I don't care , it's irrelevant to me but at least look like you have a range rather than blank emotionless stare in poster after flyer after still. I don't blame on her for that I blame the marketing people , all I am saying is they havent done her any favours. When you see clips from the movie then of her with a blank emotionless stare, it just makes it look dull and uninteresting and reinforces your perception or mis conception of the film or her performance

Oh I gotcha. As far as promos are concerned. She's a MILLITARY superheroine. She was a Fighter Pilot. The CHARACTER isn't a smiling bashful supermodel so neither would the promo shots be. You know... Maverick's photo op for Top Gun wasn't the character grinning ear to ear or anything right? I don't think it'd be very sincere for these veteran superheroine types to be all gums and lashes anyhow. Save that for the bright eyed naïve youthful supers.

[tallyho]

Granted but she could look grimly determined or angry or bellowing in rage as she summons the powers in her hands etc. Just a bit more dynamic or animated.


I mean how dull was this cover?


https://www.superheroineforum.com/viewt ... 63&t=31167

Yet she's doing something dramatic in summoning her powers.

Give her a snarl or something make her look badass

[lionbadger]

But that hasn't happened. If you look at movies from the 70s and the 80-s compared to today the standards have become MORE prudish, not less.

Oh but there is one area where its become more relaxed - men going shirtless... yeah now that took off. Brie Larson in a baggy halloween costume but Chris Hemsworth all jacked and naked... yeah real appealing to super heroine fetish people.

I dunno, Atomic Blonde not too prudish, Anna, same year as captain marvel not overly prudish. Olivia wilde does okay in Vigilante although it's a pretty dark film. Dredd was 2012 and Andersson is wearing a ton of armour but pulls off a pretty appealing performance. Are these blockbusters? no, but I doubt they would have been made at all if there was not a hero eco system bubbling along.

Now, I know it's not landing but I'll take one more crack at this

Yes we should like all ice cream flavors cause they are all "ice cream". everything is interchangeable with everything else.

what you are arguing for is nobody gets ice cream, cause you got mint when you wanted raspberry ripple and you didn't like it

and on the side you're mad about waifers for some reason because the solution to studios assuming audiences want conservativism is to ask for more prudishness "Put on a damn shirt hulk! you're body shaming me"

[Damselbinder]

The point of the climax wasn't 'overcome the seemingly invincible foe' sure... but it doesn't have to be.

I disagree. Humans have not fundamentally changed and neither has the concepts of story telling. Sure you could have a story of her "standing up" but is that interesting? No. It could also be a story of her making egg salad but is that interesting? No. You even point out she should have fought Thanos at some point. Yeah that makes sense. THAT would make a good story cause there are stakes and risk.

This was an ok movie. I think it only did $900 mil cause of when it was positioned. And yes they spent way too much time on some amnesia plot, low action and a lot of chatting. I also think coming after Infinity War hurt her movie cause Infinity War left everyone in a high and her movie was kind of bland with no real connection to anything important.

X if you think every story has to end in that way, with the hero in mortal peril from an equal challenge, that's just "I've never actually read a book" level ignorance.

Example: the Aeneid. Aeneas challenges Turnus to a final duel, and the narrative makes it clear in no uncertain terms that Turnus doesn't stand a chance. Aeneas mollywhops him, and was never under any kind of threat. If you think you know more about writing than Virgil I would ask you to... think again.

[Alice]

Larson is not fit to play the role of Capitan Marvel. She prefers the role of Ms. Denwers but as Ms. Marvel wearing her sexy black super outfit with golden lightning and a red sash highlighted black leather high tight boots to play her role as Gwen Stefani

[ivandobsky]

I agree with Alice above, but Hollywood wouldn't do that these days. Not sure why exactly. Maybe design by committee, nobody wants to put their hand up in the meeting and get cancelled. It's interesting that your music videos and celebs like your Gwen Stefanis and Kim Kardassians are sexy as ever. If one of these "empowered" ladies were to take the initiative, take responsibility for the art direction, respond to allegation from the usual suspects about "the male gaze", etc, and make a mega sexy movie, they might find a lot of success.

If not, we can figure out how to use AI to fix the movies using input from music videos and OK magazine.

[Alice]

ivandobsky
Seeing from Gwen Stefani she has a good hand to shoot good quality music videos and create music, and her acting performed in her music videos is perfect, Gwen she She has a great style of dress, she is my inspiration, my everyday look outfit.

You're absolutely right, girls like Gwen Stefani should replace the stiff Hollywood movie committee

[jlocke]

I loved Brie as Captain Marvel. Loved her in Endgame. She looks cooler/more badass with the punk haircut. But way hotter with long blonde hair.

So, I used to watch really, really, really bad Spring Break movies, like the whole crappy 90 minutes, just to see 1 boob. Not even both boobs. Just one, small, 1980's tit slipping out of bikini, for less than 1 second. Now my wildest bondage, superheroine, non-consensual, DDD cupped, dreams come true like 3 times a month. If you're missing them, that's because they're advertised on Heroine Movies and not here. I watch mainstream superheroine/superhero movies for fun. Every one of these has a porn parody available for my enjoyment. Fantastic artist create amazing x-rated comics based on the characters and stories. I don't need my mainstream movies to be sexy. I need deviants to take these movies and let their dirty imaginations run wild.

505084426517564709_5000.jpg (3.31 MiB) Viewed 538 times

578638366387010783_5000.jpg (1.46 MiB) Viewed 538 times

737898072794938545_5000.jpg (2.93 MiB) Viewed 538 times

[Mr. X]

So then why is this acceptable while Captain Marvel's outfit isn't?

capttransform.jpg (44.51 KiB) Viewed 517 times

So Brie Larson did a scene like this? And BTW he runs around like this for around 10 minutes. Where's the fan service in Capt Marvel?

Is anyone calling Brie Larson's ass "America's ass"?

BTW did you notice in the pic you posted the OBVIOUS junk bulge? Also he pulls off masculine in that suit. That HIM with the broad shoudlers. Yeah if Lynda Carter wore Brie Larson's suit she'd probably look good.

And again... Hemsworth in Love and Thunder....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... dream.html

Didn't see anything like this since the 1990s for women. Where's the female version of this in mainstream. Even Jane Foster's arms were fake.

[argento]

My answer to your question...

[theScribbler]

ABSOLUTELY