Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
Well, slightly different editing would help, "flows naturally" was overstating it, but mostly I think you delete:
PETER PARKER: Hi. I'm– Peter Parker.
CAROL DANVERS: Hey, Peter Parker. You got something for me?
PETER PARKER:I don't know how you're gonna get it through all that.
WANDA MAXIMOFF: Don't worry.
OKOYE:She's got help.
So after Cap calls Carol over, Peter tosses her the Gauntlet without comment then the female heroes are the ones who just happen to be nearby to back her up.
Never really understood why people had problems with that scene. Millions of shots of male heroes in whatever kind of movie doing a 'let's gang up' moment. Why would one shot with female heroes be pandering and unnecessary?
The simple fact that people noticed it so much and that it stood at says it's not done nearly enough and means it's actually necessary, so we actually get used to it and it doesn't stand out anymore.
AKA......
Never really understood why people had problems with that scene. Millions of shots of male heroes in whatever kind of movie doing a 'let's gang up' moment. Why would one shot with female heroes be pandering and unnecessary?
I'll never understand people who think the way to prove their toughness and superiority is to react to the mere presence of women the same way I react when I see a harmless spider in my bathtub. "Aaaaaaaaa get it away get it away!!!"
Words mean things. Romanoff wasn't fridged by any possible reading of the term:
The term came to be used more broadly, over time, to refer to any character who is targeted by an antagonist who has them killed off, abused, raped, incapacitated, de-powered, or brainwashed for the sole purpose of affecting another character, motivating them to take action.
None of which remotely applies.
As for Captain Marvel 2, it's hardly uncommon for MCU origin film directors not to return, but I hope this is an indication Feige and Co. realize they whiffed Danvers' first outing, and mean to do better next time.
Unless there is some overtly intentional thing, like the pandering scene in Endgame, it's not worth doing anything but being entertained. And even the pandering scene, while blatant, didn't detract from the movie other than for a short period.
Apologies for the misuse of the language. You are correct, she was not fridged in the traditional sense. However, her death did serve to motivate her male compatriots-- see the scene at the dock.
As for Captain Marvel 2, the directors said before they were even finished filming that they would not be returning for the second. They wanted the experience of directing a tentpole franchise film, but their larger interests lay elsewhere. And I fail to see how a billion dollar blockbuster could be considered a "whiff". I put it in the top third tier of MCU movies.
You're speculating, which is fine, but I don't think it still fits with what actually happened. Sacrifice what you love to get the stone. Hawkeye didn't sacrifice a thing.
As I said I was speculating or thinking up one scenario that remotely fits into the sacrifice-scenario for Hawkeye. Really, I agree with you that Hawkeye didn't sacrifice anything and therefore shouldn't have got the stone...
... which is why I'm so bothered by the notion that Natasha died, a woman who tried her hardest to atone for her past sins, and not Hawkeye, someone who goes around murdering people and whom Natasha sacrifices for because he has a family.
I think that of all the adjectives that can be given the Marvel movies, misogynistic isn't one of them.
Hm... in small parts you're right... but where are the female heroes? Nat only got a movie after she was dead, essentially. The MCU-women are strong... but in supporting roles. And some just have capabilities and are simply plot devices to cover up poor writing, i.e. Marvel's miraculous flight through Thanos' ship but still losing against Thanos, Wanda's powers which are just what the writer needs them to be etc.
Technically, you can make the argument the other way if Hawkeye died. It's misogynistic to have the male be the hero who gives himself up for the female, despite having a family. Or, and I think this is the reality, it just isn't misogynistic at all--it was just a story point.
Of course, it's a story point - but that doesn't absolve it from the notion that females, especially childless females are inferior. That Natasha herself in-story believes that, starting in Age of Ultron, doesn't make it any better from an outside point of view.
Unless there is some overtly intentional thing, like the pandering scene in Endgame, it's not worth doing anything but being entertained. And even the pandering scene, while blatant, didn't detract from the movie other than for a short period.
Of course, Endgame's there to entertain, and I was really entertained by it. I love the movie - but that doesn't keep me from thinking about it and finding issues in the portrayal of the main characters, their relationships. Fortunately (or unfortunately), movies are a reflection of the time they are made in... even more so superhero movies. And having the only female superhero of the main 6 think of herself as worth less than others, having her keeping things together for much of the movie and still think herself as worth less than a man who essentially went on a mindless rampage (lost family aside, some moral lines shouldn't be crossed in order to still be called "hero" worth being sacrificed for) paints a rather damning picture for women in modern society: serving, protecting but when push comes to shove even they themselves'll think the men more worth of saving.
The pandering scene, as you call it, shoved in our eyes that there are female heroes - and that's important to offset/supplement the Natasha-message. Still, it's (to this point, apart from Nat) only the 2nd line of heroes that are females. Maybe in the next phase of the MCU that'll change.
Aside from these obviously messed up allegations, I quite liked much of Marvels TV shows. I'm sure I'll enjoy the Disney+ stuff as well, but Agents of SHIELD, Agent Carter, Punisher and Daredevil were awesome, Jessica Jones and Luke Cage were amazing when they were on their game, Runaways and Defenders were fun, Cloak & Dagger was good, Helstrom looks promising, even Iron Fist got better in its second season. Sure they had Iron Fist season 1 and Inhumans in there, but overall I'd say they could have done much worse.
Eh, I liked some of them. Speaking about the Netflix shows: Daredevil Season 1 was good, S2 had its moments but had a lot of terrible stuff (like elektra being absolutely horrible and nothing like the character), and I didn't bother with Season 3 because of fake Bullseye. Luke Cage S1 was good until the villain change and I never bothered with season 2. Jessica Jones was absolutely terrible, David Tennant was the only good part. Punisher bored me (I didn't even finish the season), and Iron Fist (both seasons) and Defenders were just embarrassingly awful. They also all suffered from the "13 hour long movie" syndrome, with every single show burning out around episode 10 (sometimes recovering to have a good final episode, but they all had several really bad episodes at around the 10 episode mark).
As for the other shows, Runaways was a pathetic attempt at doing a show about a pretty good comic. It completely rejected the comic story even quicker then most of the Netflix shows did, and
what they did
to The Pride, taking away their killer edge and then having them get possessed by aliens, was fucking stupid. The pride in the comics are all willing to kill their kids, full stop. Every single one of them would murder their children without hesitation if they thought that they had to, but that was too dark for Freeform so most of them are just "doing bad things for supposedly good reasons".Then, when they actually wanted the parents to be threatening to the kids they had to have them get possessed by aliens, because the characters as written were way too tame to be much of a threat to the kids.
Seriously, Stargirl did "villains with teen kids kids" so much better, I won't spoil it but the Injustice Society are a better version of the Pride then the TV Pride was
Cloak & Dagger was literally just a generic Freeform tween drama, Inhumans was the worse written, cheapest show with the Marvel name since the short lived 70s live action Spider-Man stuff, and that show might have actually had a bigger budget adjusted for inflation (and I say this as one of the few people who genuinely enjoys the Inhumans in the comics and was excited to see them in live action)
Agents of SHIELD was good for a few seasons, then went bad when Mockingbird/Mack betrayed the team, then got good again when Ghost Rider showed up and then permanently went to shit when they turned 75% of the cast into nazi's and then removed themselves from canon with the future arc. I was actually excited for the Ghost rider spinoff show, but it got cancelled.
The Helstrom show has basically no connection to the comics. Based on the trailer, they scrubbed most of the demonic connections (his sister is even renamed to ana from Satana, and not as a cover name, its just her name), which are the entire fucking point of the characters. Sure, the comics have dialed some things back (Hellstrom is rarely called the "Son of Satan" anymore), but he and his sister are both blatantly demonic in the comics. If they're worried about shithead religious nutjobs, why try to adapt a comic character called "Son of Satan"?
The legacy of Marvel TV, in my opinion, is them being the DCEU of Marvel. They were embarrassed by the source material, and did everything they could to stay away from it. Jeph Loeb is a shithead who ruined the live action and animated Marvel shows, and I'd be fine with everything related to Marvel TV being buried, even the few good bits, and hop that eventually the MCU takes the characters used by Marvel TV and does them better.
As I said I was speculating or thinking up one scenario that remotely fits into the sacrifice-scenario for Hawkeye. Really, I agree with you that Hawkeye didn't sacrifice anything and therefore shouldn't have got the stone...
... which is why I'm so bothered by the notion that Natasha died, a woman who tried her hardest to atone for her past sins, and not Hawkeye, someone who goes around murdering people and whom Natasha sacrifices for because he has a family.
Hm... in small parts you're right... but where are the female heroes? Nat only got a movie after she was dead, essentially. The MCU-women are strong... but in supporting roles. And some just have capabilities and are simply plot devices to cover up poor writing, i.e. Marvel's miraculous flight through Thanos' ship but still losing against Thanos, Wanda's powers which are just what the writer needs them to be etc.
Of course, it's a story point - but that doesn't absolve it from the notion that females, especially childless females are inferior. That Natasha herself in-story believes that, starting in Age of Ultron, doesn't make it any better from an outside point of view.
Of course, Endgame's there to entertain, and I was really entertained by it. I love the movie - but that doesn't keep me from thinking about it and finding issues in the portrayal of the main characters, their relationships. Fortunately (or unfortunately), movies are a reflection of the time they are made in... even more so superhero movies. And having the only female superhero of the main 6 think of herself as worth less than others, having her keeping things together for much of the movie and still think herself as worth less than a man who essentially went on a mindless rampage (lost family aside, some moral lines shouldn't be crossed in order to still be called "hero" worth being sacrificed for) paints a rather damning picture for women in modern society: serving, protecting but when push comes to shove even they themselves'll think the men more worth of saving.
The pandering scene, as you call it, shoved in our eyes that there are female heroes - and that's important to offset/supplement the Natasha-message. Still, it's (to this point, apart from Nat) only the 2nd line of heroes that are females. Maybe in the next phase of the MCU that'll change.
I think getting Ike Perlmutter out is going to do a lot to help get women more leading roles in the MCU. He refused to let them do female or minority lead movies while he was in charge because he was convinced there was no interest in them. Since he left we've gotten Black Panther, Ant-Man and the Wasp, Captain Marvel, and we have Black Widow and Shang Chi coming up.
Markus and McFeely explain why Natasha died instead of Clint here. They even speak of a draft where Clint died instead of Natasha and how one of their female colleagues told them "not to take this away from her".
Apologies for the misuse of the language. You are correct, she was not fridged in the traditional sense. However, her death did serve to motivate her male compatriots-- see the scene at the dock.
Well, okay, but any death of a team member in a conflict situation tends to motivate the survivors. The point is, "fridging," even in its more diluted definitions, has always meant being a victim, whereas Romanoff chose her fate herself. So... apology accepted.
Apologies for the misuse of the language. You are correct, she was not fridged in the traditional sense. However, her death did serve to motivate her male compatriots-- see the scene at the dock.
That honestly doesn't track. They were already plenty motivated to undo the snappening. All Nat's death did to their dispositions was to hurt and piss them off, as loosing a friend and loved one is wont to do. She chose her fate willingly; it wasn't something that was done to her, nor did it spur any action that wouldn't have happened regardless, indeed it allowed them to do what they needed to do; classic sacrifice play.
The only thing one might argue is that it motivated Clint to forgive himself and believe he has worth again. But that's the polar opposite of a senseless death as it inspires positive growth, not revenge. Not even in the same galactic supercluster as a fridging.
Geez, I rank it above both Spider-Man movies, two out of three Captain America movies, two out of three Iron Man movies, the entire Thor series (it does just nearly squeeze by Ragnarok), The Incredible Hulk, Doctor Strange, the second Guardians movie both Ant-Man movies and Age of Ultron.
Ooo, are we rating the MCU movies? At the moment (subject to change at any time):
1 Infinity War
2 Avengers
3 Winter Soldier
4 Guardians of the Galaxy
5 Endgame
6 Homecoming
7 Captain America
8 Iron Man
9 Doctor Strange
10 Civil War
11 Ragnarok
12 Guardians of the Galaxy 2
13 Black Panther
14 Far From Home
15 Age of Ultron
16 Ant Man
17 Thor
18 Ant Man and The Wasp
19 Iron Man 2
20 Captain Marvel
21 Iron Man 3
22 Dark World
23 Hulk
Oh Dagon save from "rankings". I mean let's ignore for a second how one dimensional, arbitrary and utterly unhelpful they are; who the hell really cares to read the exact ordering of someone else's "list of things I like to varying degrees!"
Give me a discussion about something substantive over a parade of lists that literally mean nothing to anyone but the person that wrote it, any day!
Well, I like lists (and I don't care that some people don't ) so why not (subject to change):
01 Iron Man
02 Avengers
03 Infinity War
04 Endgame
05 Guardians of the Galaxy 2
06 Winter Soldier
07 Civil War
08 Thor: Ragnarok
09 Black Panther
10 Avengers: Age of Ultron
11 Iron Man 3
12 Captain America: The First Avenger
13 Doctor Strange
14 Incredible Hulk
15 Iron Man 2
16 Captain Marvel
17 Ant-Man
18 Guardians of the Galaxy
19 Thor
20 Thor 2: The Dark World
All the movies above this point I think are good to amazing, the ones underneath this point I think are mediocre to horrible
21 Spider-Man: Far from Home
22 Spider-Man: Homecoming
23 Ant-Man & The wasp
) so why not (subject to change):