The Ultimate Superheroines Forum

Oh MH, you sweet summer child

Oh, boy this thread is not going to be pretty...

She hasn't really got the chance to DO much with the role as yet so I say yes. The first film she was mostly playing an amnesiac soldier who only starts to acquire much of any semblance of self by the END... and she's barely been in any other Marvel properties as yet so I think she should get the chance to do something with the character.

As for her reaction to the question, can you really blame her? She said something that was vilified wildly out of context and WILDLY out of proportion for basically half a year of hate MISREPRESENTING what she said. If she isn't just simply meaning to say here "I'll do it as long as Disney wants me to' and actually 'I'll do it if I hear people want me to cause I don't want to keep doing it if its just gonna be me living through hate mail and bullshit' then she's well earned the right to quit. If she doesn't want to do it again, it's essentially y'all's fault who couldn't shut up about what she said without actually taking what she said into CONTEXT. Or in other words, if she doesn't want to keep doing it, it's probably cause she's been 'cancelled' emotionally.

Funny how cancel culture works innit? When it's someone you like saying something questionable or being missrepresented, you're quick to defend them from the mob... but the whole Captain Marvel shitstorm was essentially just Cancel Culture at work from the other end of the culture. Remember that the next time we're defending Gina Carano's Verbatim Nazi Tweet from the bloodstarved mob, that half of the people on this very website demanded the same blood for Brie Larson by taking a single sentence she said in a full length SPEECH and useing that to call her Satan.

I figure she only survived it cause Disney mostly agreed with the politics (and y'know... understood the entire context of what she actually said)

Larson is someone who should just go away.

She acted like a Diva and was dismissive of criticism

Edward Norton lost the role of the Hulk for a lot less

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Larson is someone who should just go away.

She acted like a Diva and was dismissive of criticism

Edward Norton lost the role of the Hulk for a lot less

I wouldn't call it 'a lot less'

Ed Norton lost the role, somewhat mutually, for being a control freak denied control. He's KNOWN to be an Actor who demands a lot of control over the films he's in. Occasionally this is potentially beneficial (His cut of American History X is actually the cut of the film we got... the Director was so pissed about this he demanded his name be taken off the film as it apparently no longer resembled the film the director wanted to make.) but that's an attitude that is going to cause a LOT of professional friction. He's an actor who probably shouldn't take too many roles in films he doesn't already have a lot of control over. He's got the talent, clearly, but if you keep poking your director telling them 'I can do this better' then go behind their back, re-edit the film and give that to the producers on the sly it makes you a bit of a problem. He's better off just BEING the director.

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Larson is someone who should just go away.

She acted like a Diva and was dismissive of criticism

Edward Norton lost the role of the Hulk for a lot less

I wouldn't call it 'a lot less'

Ed Norton lost the role, somewhat mutually, for being a control freak denied control. He's KNOWN to be an Actor who demands a lot of control over the films he's in. Occasionally this is potentially beneficial (His cut of American History X is actually the cut of the film we got... the Director was so pissed about this he demanded his name be taken off the film as it apparently no longer resembled the film the director wanted to make.) but that's an attitude that is going to cause a LOT of professional friction. He's an actor who probably shouldn't take too many roles in films he doesn't already have a lot of control over. He's got the talent, clearly, but if you keep poking your director telling them 'I can do this better' then go behind their back, re-edit the film and give that to the producers on the sly it makes you a bit of a problem. He's better off just BEING the director.

Directors are less valuable than a good actor, Mark Ruffalo is such a jerk; I wish he had not got the role

Oh, MH - such a divider, not a uniter.

My answer - sure, as long as Brie wears this costume. Plus, she has to fight "The Lizards From Below".

I'd be very interested to see her, or anybody, play Captain Marvel for the first time!

The MCU movie of the same title is clearly about some other character with a terribly written story!

Brie has done a decent job with a poor hand, it's the writers and creative team that need to be fired.

From what I seem to remember from a previous thread on the topic of Larson and Captain Marvel was she made some controversial comments and those comments were attributed to her Captain Marvel film, but the reality of the situation was her comments were not attributed to Captain Marvel, but to a previous film for which she starred in. The result of which was that Larson and by association, Captain Marvel got a lot of unfair bad press and unjust social media condemnation.

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Larson is someone who should just go away.

She acted like a Diva and was dismissive of criticism

Edward Norton lost the role of the Hulk for a lot less

I wouldn't call it 'a lot less'

Ed Norton lost the role, somewhat mutually, for being a control freak denied control. He's KNOWN to be an Actor who demands a lot of control over the films he's in. Occasionally this is potentially beneficial (His cut of American History X is actually the cut of the film we got... the Director was so pissed about this he demanded his name be taken off the film as it apparently no longer resembled the film the director wanted to make.) but that's an attitude that is going to cause a LOT of professional friction. He's an actor who probably shouldn't take too many roles in films he doesn't already have a lot of control over. He's got the talent, clearly, but if you keep poking your director telling them 'I can do this better' then go behind their back, re-edit the film and give that to the producers on the sly it makes you a bit of a problem. He's better off just BEING the director.

Directors are less valuable than a good actor, Mark Ruffalo is such a jerk; I wish he had not got the role

The ignorance of this comment is just astounding.

MightyHypnotic wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Does Anyone Want Brie Larson To Play Capt Marvel Again?

Yes

What if they choose her?

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Dazzle1 wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Larson is someone who should just go away.

She acted like a Diva and was dismissive of criticism

Edward Norton lost the role of the Hulk for a lot less

I wouldn't call it 'a lot less'

Ed Norton lost the role, somewhat mutually, for being a control freak denied control. He's KNOWN to be an Actor who demands a lot of control over the films he's in. Occasionally this is potentially beneficial (His cut of American History X is actually the cut of the film we got... the Director was so pissed about this he demanded his name be taken off the film as it apparently no longer resembled the film the director wanted to make.) but that's an attitude that is going to cause a LOT of professional friction. He's an actor who probably shouldn't take too many roles in films he doesn't already have a lot of control over. He's got the talent, clearly, but if you keep poking your director telling them 'I can do this better' then go behind their back, re-edit the film and give that to the producers on the sly it makes you a bit of a problem. He's better off just BEING the director.

Directors are less valuable than a good actor, Mark Ruffalo is such a jerk; I wish he had not got the role

The ignorance of this comment is just astounding.

What that Ruffalo is a jerk, he is . Sorry he is one these Celebs who think they should dictate to elected officials. You can replace a director very easily

She did not get a lot to do in Captain Marvel and they dressed her up in the superhero equivalent of a pantsuit… if they had a good story where she gets to do SOMETHING, I would watch it. I think the problem is similar to the Superman problems… she’s just too super. Someone laying into her with a chain gun and she is just going to walk into it and bend the barrel or something. Hawkeye or black widow at least are humans and watching the run duck and dodge is half the fun. You know they aren’t going to die, but they COULD die (well BW did…).

The question is why they aren't making a sequel? The first made over $900 mil. And she didn't really do much. No good boss fights. In fact Marvel has been pretty darn bad at boss fights since Endgame. And she got bigger tatas so I would imaging she'd want to show them off. Who cares if she's a dweeb in real life.

I say put her in and double the budget.

She's done just fine. I'd like to see more happen with the character just period.

To what extent is the Ms. Marvel character in the MCU interesting? The key is charisma, not mere good looks. Robert Downey Jr. brought so much to the Tony Stark role--I would argue he helped cement what was going to be a good long-term project into a great long-term project with the opening phase of the MCU. Chadwick Boseman also had charisma and good looks, along with a certain gravitas, that made his character likable and made connections with the audience. Chris Hemsworth has also done a quality job of making Thor an interesting character (though I found the plots for most of the Thor movies to be about average); his take on Thor is what made me watch those movies. So too with Benedict Cucumber and Tom Holland. All these actors are good-looking guys, but they have that certain charisma.
In contrast, guys like Mark Ruffalo don't seem to have it, which is my guess as to one major reason why no new Hulk movies have been made and why Hulk has been relegated to a secondary character for some time now (though I can also see the mixed results of the previous Hulk movies being part of the reason was well). Brie Larson is a beautiful woman, but I never found her Ms. Marvel character to be appealing beyond the visual. Perhaps bad script/dialogue is to blame, but the character never transcended into something more than a generic super-powered heroine on the screen. I don't know if she can create the charisma needed to make the character more engaging and interesting.
To delve a bit further into the topic, could part of the reason for her lack of charisma/likability be due writing the character to make her too powerful and focus too much on promoting her instead of developing her? Maybe there is a fear to put the character into a vulnerable scenario as they might with a different superhero. Perhaps they moved too quickly into establishing the character rather than introducing the character. Whatever the reasons, many seem to be apathetic to the character which leads to a lack of support for more of the character. But I would be interested in seeing Larson reprise her role if there can be a quality script with a captivating storyline.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

1 year ago

The question is why they aren't making a sequel?

They are. Wiki says about "The Marvels" that "it is intended to be the sequel to Captain Marvel (2019), a continuation of the Disney+ series Ms. Marvel (2022), and the 33rd film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)."

It's a movie about three people who are 100% named "Marvel" (Carol, Kamala and Monica) who are also 100% female. You can't get more "M-She-U" (Nerdrotic's phrase, not mine) than that. Yet, for a Forum such as ours, that should be theoretically heaven on earth, no? At least if the women are beautiful, the costumes are tight, and there's some good powerful action plus some nice moments of peril.

I mean, it's probably not *gonna* be. (For those of who say I cannot know the future, you are correct. But I can make an educated guess.)
But it *should* be, in *our* version of utopia (not their version).

Get her to play Double duty as Moonstone.

sugarcoater wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Brie Larson is a beautiful woman, but I never found her Ms. Marvel character to be appealing beyond the visual. Perhaps bad script/dialogue is to blame, but the character never transcended into something more than a generic super-powered heroine on the screen. I don't know if she can create the charisma needed to make the character more engaging and interesting.
To delve a bit further into the topic, could part of the reason for her lack of charisma/likability be due writing the character to make her too powerful and focus too much on promoting her instead of developing her? Maybe there is a fear to put the character into a vulnerable scenario as they might with a different superhero.

I think it is the opposite. I think they have been over cautious in doing a heroine led movie because so many have previously gone wrong (and then you see what happened with WW2 and the lukewarm blackwidow movie). Captain Marvel was a solid but nothing special marvel movie, small bits in Endgame kept the character warm but nothing to get your teeth into as such.

I am hoping for something a bit meatier, maybe if the skrulls pop up as expected in the next phase but we'll see. Disney seem to be more interested in their streaming service these days than anything else.

Hahaha I second that but I have more chance becoming the next President of the US than that happening. Just look at Disney and Marvel- you will never, ever see a female character in sexy gear like that.

That's why I'm a DC guy- but even they are testing my limits (the last few Supergirl costumes have done nothing for me).

Plus, I found Brie to be a fairly miserable actress. No idea how the original made 900 million.

shevek wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Oh, MH - such a divider, not a uniter.

My answer - sure, as long as Brie wears this costume. Plus, she has to fight "The Lizards From Below".

first Warbird appearance.jpg

ms marvel costume.jpg

The problem is that she's never been given space to earn the status she has in Endgame. In Endgame she's one of the most awesome characters in the whole thing and she's barely in it. She almost steals the movie. The whole bit where the starship starts firing and nobody knows what they are firing at is just the most incredible character entrance in any of the movies.

But her actual movie? It's incredibly low key, doesn't even seem particularly high stakes, and it's a decent little movie but it feels small.

They need to give her the space to strut. She's an extremely good actress, got that Oscar already of course, give her a big movie with a decent script and dare I say it, decent action scenes (I know, mad to ask that of Marvel but I choose to believe) and she'd rock it.

Also Disney's track record for backing their actresses when they get targeted by the reactionary dipshit industry is woeful. They need to unfuck themselves on that front because it's so bleak to see.

Brie Larson is a fine actress. She's got an Academy award ffs. The problem has been the scripts and a mishandling of the 'order' of things. They had her film her parts for Endgame BEFORE her movie began filming so nobody knew who or what she would be even BEHIND the camera, and then the CM film wasn't a strong enough character piece ... I still don't who thought the 'amnesiac' plot line was gonna work in a straight character centric action film. Brie's been in boatloads of different films and she has a lot of range (she can even f'kn sing - check her Scott Pilgrim shit... that's HER singing)

The problems have been two fold. Mishandling of the character (mild mishandling at that, she's not the only MCU character whose had lackluster beginnings, she's just the only one who gets blamed for it) and then a media circus 'cancel' attempt that's left a sour taste in everyone's mouth. I remember QUITE WELL that my hype for the film was gone when it came out and it was entirely the fault of the loudmouthed fuckers who wouldn't shut up about it... and it's still just a middling MCU film! It's not even one of the objectively AWFUL ones. Thor 2, Thor 4, Doctor Strange 2, Avengers 2... these are all much worse films with characters who we forgive being in such shite films... Ant Man 2! If Captain Marvel was the same movie staring Jude Law as 'Mar Vell' it'd have trucked along with less fuss than even Thor 2 somehow managed to truck by without controversy... it was just an average film! The primary reason it's got a bad rep instead of just passed off as 'average marvel' is cause people still call Brie Larson a racist over a quote they were presented in bad faith.

My “No” vote was not due to Brie Larson’s statement. It had more to do with the continuing ridiculous trend to portray a beautiful female heroine as a man. Instead of donning a costume that would enhance the feminine features and attributes of a beautiful actress, morons have forced outfits that are poorly interpreted and just plain suck on us. The same losers chop off the heroine’s hair to, “Butch” them up. Who are they trying to sell these insipid androgynous products too?

Brie Larson is beautiful and should be dressed appropriately to enhance her “femininity” not make her another male character. If you have seen Brie Larson in, “The Babysitter” it is clear she is an attractive and unambiguously female. She was better outfitted in, “King Kong”. Brie had an appealing woman’s hair style in the first, “Captain Marvel”. I shudder to see the next ludicrous iteration these female hating mobs come up with for the character.

History is full of art and literature depicting the many facets and beauty of a woman. Helen of Troy is the beauty who launched 1000 ships, not the genderless bipod that caused thousands of ships to flee. The definition of Superheorine is: A heroine with supernatural powers; a female superhero. It can’t be that hard to make Brie look like a female heroine, can it?

That's got nothing to do with Brie Larson playing Captain Marvel? Marvel is not changing it's theatrical costuming trends any time soon. How they make costumes has nothing to do with the actress playing the character or whether or not they can do a good job in the role and deserve the chance...........

I mean 'character sexy' is a very small element of a theatrical film in the grand scheme of things, an incredibly unimportant one. Nobody thinks Captain America needs to be in a skintight spandex suit in order for his films to be WORTH watching. There's them what would ENJOY it more if he did maybe, but you'd still never say 'Winter Soldier wasn't worth my time' because Steve wasn't shirtless enough... so why isn't the inverse true? Why is it that unless Captain Marvel's entire bodily form is on display the film isn't worth it? Isn't that EXTREMELY small fry compared to whether or not the film can actually be good and worth your time?

Titillations you can get in three seconds. Wonder Woman spent thirty seconds being chloroformed and then basically was never much imperiled again in the ENTIRE run of the show, and that thirty seconds sparked an entire fetish. We don't need CONSTANT TITILATIONS ruining the eb and flow of our superheroine films. What we need are GOOD superheroine films to inspire our imaginations. I promise you, Brie Larson's costume isn't the reason Captain Marvel peril didn't explode in the aftermath of her film, the fact that the film is a swamp of nonsense political controversy though? Well that poisons the well.

McGheeny wrote: ↑

1 year ago

My “No” vote was not due to Brie Larson’s statement. It had more to do with the continuing ridiculous trend to portray a beautiful female heroine as a man. Instead of donning a costume that would enhance the feminine features and attributes of a beautiful actress, morons have forced outfits that are poorly interpreted and just plain suck on us. The same losers chop off the heroine’s hair to, “Butch” them up. Who are they trying to sell these insipid androgynous products too?

Brie Larson is beautiful and should be dressed appropriately to enhance her “femininity” not make her another male character. If you have seen Brie Larson in, “The Babysitter” it is clear she is an attractive and unambiguously female. She was better outfitted in, “King Kong”. Brie had an appealing woman’s hair style in the first, “Captain Marvel”. I shudder to see the next ludicrous iteration these female hating mobs come up with for the character.

History is full of art and literature depicting the many facets and beauty of a woman. Helen of Troy is the beauty who launched 1000 ships, not the genderless bipod that caused thousands of ships to flee. The definition of Superheorine is: A heroine with supernatural powers; a female superhero.
Brie-Larson-Feet-92968.png
It can’t be that hard to make Brie look like a female heroine, can it?

This has the energy of a blood-spattered, 110-page manifesto written entirely in letters chopped out of back-issues of The New York Post.

I liked and indeed own the first Captain Marvel, I would be fine with another one of equal or better quality.

That said, nothing announced about the "Marvels" team-up movie gives me much confidence. I'd rather see another solo Captain Marvel movie. Particularly if her costume doesn't look like a seat cover.

Almost certainly someone out there does. However, I worry that my answering this poll correctly would be misinterpreted as a statement of my wanting to see this, which I don't. Nothing personal - i just find those Marvel films a bit boring. I only know this stuff a bit from watching The Quarterling's videos, and truth be told, I usually don't really enjoy those that much either.

Hell yes! She was awesome!!

Brie can look absolutely delicious when needed, put her in a sexy costume and with her strong character BOOM she can be the bomb!!!!

lionbadger wrote: ↑

1 year ago

sugarcoater wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Brie Larson is a beautiful woman, but I never found her Ms. Marvel character to be appealing beyond the visual. Perhaps bad script/dialogue is to blame, but the character never transcended into something more than a generic super-powered heroine on the screen. I don't know if she can create the charisma needed to make the character more engaging and interesting.
To delve a bit further into the topic, could part of the reason for her lack of charisma/likability be due writing the character to make her too powerful and focus too much on promoting her instead of developing her? Maybe there is a fear to put the character into a vulnerable scenario as they might with a different superhero.

I think it is the opposite. I think they have been over cautious in doing a heroine led movie because so many have previously gone wrong (and then you see what happened with WW2 and the lukewarm blackwidow movie). Captain Marvel was a solid but nothing special marvel movie, small bits in Endgame kept the character warm but nothing to get your teeth into as such.

I am hoping for something a bit meatier, maybe if the skrulls pop up as expected in the next phase but we'll see. Disney seem to be more interested in their streaming service these days than anything else.

The opposite how so? I don't think I'm in disagreement with your point. And with the previous heroine-led movies, what's your take as to why they failed? Is there a commonality or did each fail due to their own unique circumstances?

I just don't think they have "made her too powerful and focused too much on promoting her instead of developing her"

she's had one movie and a bit part in a massive 2 parter, I want to see what happens with i.e. secret wars which I assume will have her taking the iron man position to rebuild avengers?

I do think you are onto something about development, I think WW2's big weakness was too much action and not enough development, I haven't seen the blackwidow movie but maybe again that is because I've never found her to be a particularly interesting character. That might be me being stupid though because I thought the same about Captain Merica before I saw that, possibly there is something to be said for having low expectations.

Lets not forget that WW1 was actually pretty good, involved essentially an 'invincible' Diana (at least in comparison to whom she was fighting) and people still consider it one of, if not the best, DCEU film right? So Captain Marvel being incredibly powerful isn't itself a problem.

lionbadger wrote: ↑

1 year ago

I just don't think they have "made her too powerful and focused too much on promoting her instead of developing her"

she's had one movie and a bit part in a massive 2 parter, I want to see what happens with i.e. secret wars which I assume will have her taking the iron man position to rebuild avengers?

I do think you are onto something about development, I think WW2's big weakness was too much action and not enough development, I haven't seen the blackwidow movie but maybe again that is because I've never found her to be a particularly interesting character. That might be me being stupid though because I thought the same about Captain Merica before I saw that, possibly there is something to be said for having low expectations.

Gotcha, and thanks for clarifying. Makes sense to me. I am curious as to how Marvel will rebuild the Avengers with the next phase. Their real challenge, as I see it, will be creating the same likability and charisma for their leads. Hopefully they can pull it off as a Secret Wars storyline could be really good with opportunities for some quality twists and turns to the overall plot.

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Lets not forget that WW1 was actually pretty good, involved essentially an 'invincible' Diana (at least in comparison to whom she was fighting) and people still consider it one of, if not the best, DCEU film right? So Captain Marvel being incredibly powerful isn't itself a problem.

I partially agree with this point. But as with most all comic book movies, the heart is often in how the secondary characters are developed and affected by the plot. For example, the deaths in the Spiderman series packed a punch, from Uncle Ben to Gwen to Aunt May. There's no killing off Spiderman, but his personal losses and his complete erasure from everyone's memory made for a significant defeat of sorts. For Wonder Woman, the loss of her initial love in a sacrificial manner had some emotional juice to it. But I think without that, there would not have been that much to the movie (and I don't think the secondary characters were even remotely fleshed out). My impression is the Wonder Woman movie garnered so much praise primarily because it was long overdue (the anticipation had been building for decades in some circles) and had an actress who played the part quite well. But the story was average and did not create much of an emotional connection for me (which I'll admit is subjective). But without any other character development outside of Steve Rogers, the movie fell fairly flat for me.
So ironically, it seems that it's the villains and supporting cast that make the movie successful--not the superhero. Without a good conflict with a worthy adversary, and without a supporting cast to add depth to the characters, the movie or series will fall flat.

sugarcoater wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Lets not forget that WW1 was actually pretty good, involved essentially an 'invincible' Diana (at least in comparison to whom she was fighting) and people still consider it one of, if not the best, DCEU film right? So Captain Marvel being incredibly powerful isn't itself a problem.

I partially agree with this point. But as with most all comic book movies, the heart is often in how the secondary characters are developed and affected by the plot. For example, the deaths in the Spiderman series packed a punch, from Uncle Ben to Gwen to Aunt May. There's no killing off Spiderman, but his personal losses and his complete erasure from everyone's memory made for a significant defeat of sorts. For Wonder Woman, the loss of her initial love in a sacrificial manner had some emotional juice to it. But I think without that, there would not have been that much to the movie (and I don't think the secondary characters were even remotely fleshed out). My impression is the Wonder Woman movie garnered so much praise primarily because it was long overdue (the anticipation had been building for decades in some circles) and had an actress who played the part quite well. But the story was average and did not create much of an emotional connection for me (which I'll admit is subjective). But without any other character development outside of Steve Rogers, the movie fell fairly flat for me.
So ironically, it seems that it's the villains and supporting cast that make the movie successful--not the superhero. Without a good conflict with a worthy adversary, and without a supporting cast to add depth to the characters, the movie or series will fall flat.

Sure, but that's still not the Actresses fault nor make her power tier the flaw that 'breaks the film' or something. That's all I mean to point out up there. Captain Marvels POWER has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not her films can be good or not... that's not an acceptable argument to be made......... especially some sixty or seventy odd years into SUPERMAN'S die hard fandom. If 'too powerful' was a stop gap, Superman wouldn't be a household name.

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Sure, but that's still not the Actresses fault nor make her power tier the flaw that 'breaks the film' or something. That's all I mean to point out up there. Captain Marvels POWER has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not her films can be good or not... that's not an acceptable argument to be made......... especially some sixty or seventy odd years into SUPERMAN'S die hard fandom. If 'too powerful' was a stop gap, Superman wouldn't be a household name.

Agreed. Regardless of the actress's personal life, she has to do what the script and director tell her and if she's not given a good script and good story then its not her fault. I can't think of any actress that would have done better with CM1 given what it was about. No good boss fight, we don't see her powers till the last 20 minutes. Little action. And yes they do stuff with superman all the time.

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

Beside bad scripts.

tallyho wrote: ↑

1 year ago

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.

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

sugarcoater wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Lets not forget that WW1 was actually pretty good, involved essentially an 'invincible' Diana (at least in comparison to whom she was fighting) and people still consider it one of, if not the best, DCEU film right? So Captain Marvel being incredibly powerful isn't itself a problem.

I partially agree with this point. But as with most all comic book movies, the heart is often in how the secondary characters are developed and affected by the plot. For example, the deaths in the Spiderman series packed a punch, from Uncle Ben to Gwen to Aunt May. There's no killing off Spiderman, but his personal losses and his complete erasure from everyone's memory made for a significant defeat of sorts. For Wonder Woman, the loss of her initial love in a sacrificial manner had some emotional juice to it. But I think without that, there would not have been that much to the movie (and I don't think the secondary characters were even remotely fleshed out). My impression is the Wonder Woman movie garnered so much praise primarily because it was long overdue (the anticipation had been building for decades in some circles) and had an actress who played the part quite well. But the story was average and did not create much of an emotional connection for me (which I'll admit is subjective). But without any other character development outside of Steve Rogers, the movie fell fairly flat for me.
So ironically, it seems that it's the villains and supporting cast that make the movie successful--not the superhero. Without a good conflict with a worthy adversary, and without a supporting cast to add depth to the characters, the movie or series will fall flat.

Sure, but that's still not the Actresses fault nor make her power tier the flaw that 'breaks the film' or something. That's all I mean to point out up there. Captain Marvels POWER has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not her films can be good or not... that's not an acceptable argument to be made......... especially some sixty or seventy odd years into SUPERMAN'S die hard fandom. If 'too powerful' was a stop gap, Superman wouldn't be a household name.

I don't know who gets to decide what arguments are "acceptable". To your point about the actress, the charisma factor is as much a result of the script as it is the actress. I can't say if the Ms. Marvel's character's lack of charisma is due to the actress or the script or some of both, I just didn't feel the character exuded much of it. The issue may very well be 100% the script--I'll certainly acknowledge that--but I also have not watched a lot of Brie's movies so I can't speak to her acting range.
As to your second point, I will have to disagree with your suggestion that Superman is a fair comparison. It's not. Superman is one of the original superheroes. Part of his fame is due to being one of the originals. Ms. Marvel isn't even close to original in comparison. And last I checked, the Superman movie franchise has been fairly weak since Superman II back in the 1980s. So I'm going to humbly disagree with your last argument.

sugarcoater wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

sugarcoater wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Lets not forget that WW1 was actually pretty good, involved essentially an 'invincible' Diana (at least in comparison to whom she was fighting) and people still consider it one of, if not the best, DCEU film right? So Captain Marvel being incredibly powerful isn't itself a problem.

I partially agree with this point. But as with most all comic book movies, the heart is often in how the secondary characters are developed and affected by the plot. For example, the deaths in the Spiderman series packed a punch, from Uncle Ben to Gwen to Aunt May. There's no killing off Spiderman, but his personal losses and his complete erasure from everyone's memory made for a significant defeat of sorts. For Wonder Woman, the loss of her initial love in a sacrificial manner had some emotional juice to it. But I think without that, there would not have been that much to the movie (and I don't think the secondary characters were even remotely fleshed out). My impression is the Wonder Woman movie garnered so much praise primarily because it was long overdue (the anticipation had been building for decades in some circles) and had an actress who played the part quite well. But the story was average and did not create much of an emotional connection for me (which I'll admit is subjective). But without any other character development outside of Steve Rogers, the movie fell fairly flat for me.
So ironically, it seems that it's the villains and supporting cast that make the movie successful--not the superhero. Without a good conflict with a worthy adversary, and without a supporting cast to add depth to the characters, the movie or series will fall flat.

Sure, but that's still not the Actresses fault nor make her power tier the flaw that 'breaks the film' or something. That's all I mean to point out up there. Captain Marvels POWER has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not her films can be good or not... that's not an acceptable argument to be made......... especially some sixty or seventy odd years into SUPERMAN'S die hard fandom. If 'too powerful' was a stop gap, Superman wouldn't be a household name.

I don't know who gets to decide what arguments are "acceptable". To your point about the actress, the charisma factor is as much a result of the script as it is the actress. I can't say if the Ms. Marvel's character's lack of charisma is due to the actress or the script or some of both, I just didn't feel the character exuded much of it. The issue may very well be 100% the script--I'll certainly acknowledge that--but I also have not watched a lot of Brie's movies so I can't speak to her acting range.
As to your second point, I will have to disagree with your suggestion that Superman is a fair comparison. It's not. Superman is one of the original superheroes. Part of his fame is due to being one of the originals. Ms. Marvel isn't even close to original in comparison. And last I checked, the Superman movie franchise has been fairly weak since Superman II back in the 1980s. So I'm going to humbly disagree with your last argument.

Just handwaving that superman is one of the OG supers doesn't dismiss the FACT that he's both extremely powerful... and extremely popular with famous story arcs his fans would ASSURE you are good and great. SuperGIRL is extremely popular in this little place and essentially it's the same issue and occasionally even our perverse corner of the internet find a way to tell pretty decent stories about her IN SPITE OF their ultimate goal of telling a SHiP story for the shmexy! Captain Marvel's in the same boat as all of that, she's not in a separate boat JUST cause she's a very powerful character who wasn't invented 'first'. It doesn't matter that she wasn't made in the 60's, that doesn't inherently block the sorts of stories you could tell about Superman to the stories you about Captain Marvel. There's no such thing as a protagonist who is 'too powerful' FULL STOP. To say it can't be done is a self imposed limiter and a failure of imagination... it's like this cultural delusion brought in on the tail of the good seasons of Game of Thrones... the bloodthirsty maniacs who now expect EVERY fictional property to be a mountain of dead characters for the story to have stakes (those juicy.... delicious... STEAKS!!!!). They've tainted their ability to consume any sort of story except 'that one they really liked for awhile'... but the fact they can't imagine a good story without main characters dropping like flies doesn't mean good stories don't exist outside of their delusion.

ANYTHING can have interesting stories told about it, ANYTHING... there's probably a tear inducing children's story about ROCKS out there! Wouldn't surprise me for an instant. The challenge, always, is finding the right stories for the thing.

As to Brie Larson's range, I HAVE seen a soup of her stuff and can attest that she's not a limited actress. As I said above somewhere, she's got an Oscar for best actress under her belt. She's got music videos under he belt! She's a ridiculously talented woman. She's just been misrepresented by a certain element in the hopes of having her 'cancelled' back before the term was popularized.

I voted no. I could careless for the Captain Marvel movie. If Brie Larson were to dress in the black high cut leotard costume than hell yes!!!

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

sugarcoater wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

sugarcoater wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Lets not forget that WW1 was actually pretty good, involved essentially an 'invincible' Diana (at least in comparison to whom she was fighting) and people still consider it one of, if not the best, DCEU film right? So Captain Marvel being incredibly powerful isn't itself a problem.

I partially agree with this point. But as with most all comic book movies, the heart is often in how the secondary characters are developed and affected by the plot. For example, the deaths in the Spiderman series packed a punch, from Uncle Ben to Gwen to Aunt May. There's no killing off Spiderman, but his personal losses and his complete erasure from everyone's memory made for a significant defeat of sorts. For Wonder Woman, the loss of her initial love in a sacrificial manner had some emotional juice to it. But I think without that, there would not have been that much to the movie (and I don't think the secondary characters were even remotely fleshed out). My impression is the Wonder Woman movie garnered so much praise primarily because it was long overdue (the anticipation had been building for decades in some circles) and had an actress who played the part quite well. But the story was average and did not create much of an emotional connection for me (which I'll admit is subjective). But without any other character development outside of Steve Rogers, the movie fell fairly flat for me.
So ironically, it seems that it's the villains and supporting cast that make the movie successful--not the superhero. Without a good conflict with a worthy adversary, and without a supporting cast to add depth to the characters, the movie or series will fall flat.

Sure, but that's still not the Actresses fault nor make her power tier the flaw that 'breaks the film' or something. That's all I mean to point out up there. Captain Marvels POWER has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not her films can be good or not... that's not an acceptable argument to be made......... especially some sixty or seventy odd years into SUPERMAN'S die hard fandom. If 'too powerful' was a stop gap, Superman wouldn't be a household name.

I don't know who gets to decide what arguments are "acceptable". To your point about the actress, the charisma factor is as much a result of the script as it is the actress. I can't say if the Ms. Marvel's character's lack of charisma is due to the actress or the script or some of both, I just didn't feel the character exuded much of it. The issue may very well be 100% the script--I'll certainly acknowledge that--but I also have not watched a lot of Brie's movies so I can't speak to her acting range.
As to your second point, I will have to disagree with your suggestion that Superman is a fair comparison. It's not. Superman is one of the original superheroes. Part of his fame is due to being one of the originals. Ms. Marvel isn't even close to original in comparison. And last I checked, the Superman movie franchise has been fairly weak since Superman II back in the 1980s. So I'm going to humbly disagree with your last argument.

Just handwaving that superman is one of the OG supers doesn't dismiss the FACT that he's both extremely powerful... and extremely popular with famous story arcs his fans would ASSURE you are good and great. SuperGIRL is extremely popular in this little place and essentially it's the same issue and occasionally even our perverse corner of the internet find a way to tell pretty decent stories about her IN SPITE OF their ultimate goal of telling a SHiP story for the shmexy! Captain Marvel's in the same boat as all of that, she's not in a separate boat JUST cause she's a very powerful character who wasn't invented 'first'. It doesn't matter that she wasn't made in the 60's, that doesn't inherently block the sorts of stories you could tell about Superman to the stories you about Captain Marvel. There's no such thing as a protagonist who is 'too powerful' FULL STOP. To say it can't be done is a self imposed limiter and a failure of imagination... it's like this cultural delusion brought in on the tail of the good seasons of Game of Thrones... the bloodthirsty maniacs who now expect EVERY fictional property to be a mountain of dead characters for the story to have stakes (those juicy.... delicious... STEAKS!!!!). They've tainted their ability to consume any sort of story except 'that one they really liked for awhile'... but the fact they can't imagine a good story without main characters dropping like flies doesn't mean good stories don't exist outside of their delusion.

ANYTHING can have interesting stories told about it, ANYTHING... there's probably a tear inducing children's story about ROCKS out there! Wouldn't surprise me for an instant. The challenge, always, is finding the right stories for the thing.

As to Brie Larson's range, I HAVE seen a soup of her stuff and can attest that she's not a limited actress. As I said above somewhere, she's got an Oscar for best actress under her belt. She's got music videos under he belt! She's a ridiculously talented woman. She's just been misrepresented by a certain element in the hopes of having her 'cancelled' back before the term was popularized.

I do not disagree that quite a few storylines can be made interesting if done well (a big caveat though), but the originality of superheroes matters. Agree to disagree on that point. As for the Supergirl point, I don't know if that matters in the discussion. The character had a movie in 1984, has been in some cartoons, and has had several failed comic book series over the decades.

My point with the too powerful quality is that it limits the suspense. And the superhero genre is already limited in that they cannot kill off the character (with a few rare exceptions...usually followed by an inevitable reboot shortly after). Perhaps the better way to look at it is the character needs to have several significant risks connected to them: an Aunt May, a significant other, a need to keep their identity secret, a powerful weakness, etc. This goes to the point we both agree on--the need for a good plot.

Brie Larson does have acting skills, but perhaps playing a superhero isn't in her wheelhouse to the same extent as playing the mother in "Room". This does not mean she isn't a good actor, but not all actors play all parts well. But I could be wrong, I'll certainly acknowledge that. An actor may be limited by dialogue, too little character-building, a trite plot, etc. In the end, the failure of the character to be a blockbuster at the theater might be due to a weak supporting cast and a lack of a good backstory.

Anyhow, thank you for the debate and discussion Femina. I appreciate you taking the time to engage in our discourse. Off to enjoy a beautiful Saturday afternoon; may you be enjoying a good Saturday as well.

sugarcoater wrote: ↑

1 year ago

I do not disagree that quite a few storylines can be made interesting if done well (a big caveat though), but the originality of superheroes matters. Agree to disagree on that point. As for the Supergirl point, I don't know if that matters in the discussion. The character had a movie in 1984, has been in some cartoons, and has had several failed comic book series over the decades.

Sure... but an 'amount' of power has nothing to do with the originality of a character? Power 'tiers' are just tiers. Captain Marvel's powerSET isn't a copy of Supermans? The source is different, what it allows her to do is different. It's not a copy of superman to be 'as powerful as superman'... characters don't get to have 'dibs' on power tiers.

And yes, you don't create tension in these superhero films by threating the hero's lives MOST of the time (You have your Endgames and big finale set pieces where the audience understands 'it could actually happen here" but all the rest of the time you can NEVER beat out the viewers awareness that Thor isn't about to be punked and killed by the Ninth Doctor in the Goth. Instead you make character pieces. You think about the kinds of trials and tribulations they have to deal with.

Frankly I'll be disappointed if 'The Marvels' doesn't have at least a little to say about MCU Carol's propensity to 'vanish' and spend most of her time in some degree of solitude flying around in space, turning up to save the day and then bouncing before having to deal with the uncomfortable social dynamics of other sentient beings after spending so long apart from it all.... you know? She's not gonna DIE, and you can't make us think she will in a mid-phase film... there aren't many PHTSICAL threats she needs to SERIOUSLY worry about, instead show us what kind of things are actually threatening her. There'll be at least three superheroines in this next one anyway, and the younger, less powerful, less experienced gals are better fodder for the traditionally modes of tension anyway.

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

Femina wrote: ↑

1 year ago

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.

the trick is to use some sort of tainted energy that she can't help but absorb

Damselbinder wrote: ↑

1 year ago

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.

Mr. X wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Damselbinder wrote: ↑

1 year ago

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

Damselbinder wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Mr. X wrote: ↑

1 year ago

Damselbinder wrote: ↑

1 year ago

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.