She was in a film that bombed.
Spoilers Marvel Cinematic Universe spoiler-heavy speculation thread
- Thread starter bbjeg
- Start date
But the reason you can tell the character isn't liked isn't just because some people go overboard on the internet in complaining. It's because they simply didn't use her more. The lack of use is kind of the proof that whatever measurement they were using to examine fan approval, she didn't pass.
Even if they got some positive feedback that is not the same as people loving the character. If fans main response is "meh, she is okay I guess" then that exactly is not what you are looking forward in terms of being the face of the MCU.
The reality is that they are still in search of that new face. Even now the MCU doesn't have true replacements for Stark and Rogers. My money is they are now hoping a few of the X-Men characters will do that. I think T'Challa might have been able to do that if the actor hadn't sadly died. I think Spider-Man could be that but they seem to be limited to how much they can use him. I think Wanda could also be such a character but they made her go evil and killed her. Totally baffling mood as to what they have done to Wanda.
No story so far needed her. That would be like saying every other movie besides a CA movie or an Avengers movie required Captain America. Or that every movie required Tony Stark.
Since her debut, she was part of three films in total and a end credit. And we all know a part of the cast for Doomsday and all of the cast for Secret Wars still need to be announced.
Again, you're not giving facts. You're jumping to a conclusion and trying to convince others this is gospel and truth. That's not how that works.
Now, as soon as all the cast for both the new Avenger movies are fully revealed and Brie is not in either, I'm willing to say you're theory has a point. Till then, you're simply creating evidence.
Nah, it's more that they waited too long to introduce her and integrate her more into the series. She should've been in Guardians of the Galaxy, replacing Star-Lord as the leader of the group entirely. Then gradually make her more powerful as the series goes on.
If the character is beloved you find ways to get them into more stuff. Tony Stark for example was made Spiderman's mentor and is basically the co-lead of Captain America 3. Got him in a cameo in the first Hulk and even in the Avengers movies with all these other popular characters he the lead of all of them. He is so beloved they are bringing Downey Jr back to save the MCU in the next movies. Remember to be the face of the MCU means your basically the star character among even other Star characters. The Micheal Jordan of the MCU.
It started even before the Marvels though. If Marvel had actually wanted her to be the face of the MCU then she would have had cameos all over the place like Downey Jr. did. Other than Shang-Chi, that never happened.
Problem was, as has been said, that Captain Marvel was treated as a failure by the studio. It was, to be honest, a pedestrian film that didn't establish a strong, relatable backstory or motivations for the character.
And Marvel has had this problem repeat several times on the big screen with their "cosmic characters." The Eternals, for one. Shang-Chi was a better movie, but still had a lackluster performance.
Steve Rogers is a poor, physically weak kid from Brooklyn with great moral courage and clarity, who puts his life on the line and as a result becomes Captain America. Tony Stark is a brilliant guy, but self-indulgent, self-centered and oblivious to the moral evils of what he does - and when he's brought face-to-face with that and in mortal fear of his own life, he grows into a hero while struggling all the way to overcome his own failings and atone for his past.
Those Earth-bound, human characters were just easier for people to identify with and care about than are Gods from Outer Space.
And Marvel has had this problem repeat several times on the big screen with their "cosmic characters." The Eternals, for one. Shang-Chi was a better movie, but still had a lackluster performance.
Steve Rogers is a poor, physically weak kid from Brooklyn with great moral courage and clarity, who puts his life on the line and as a result becomes Captain America. Tony Stark is a brilliant guy, but self-indulgent, self-centered and oblivious to the moral evils of what he does - and when he's brought face-to-face with that and in mortal fear of his own life, he grows into a hero while struggling all the way to overcome his own failings and atone for his past.
Those Earth-bound, human characters were just easier for people to identify with and care about than are Gods from Outer Space.
This was not a good decision, and resulted in what is the absolute worst Spider-Man movie of all time and the second-worst movie in the entire MCU.
I agree. IMO I think it was a mistake to focus so much on the cosmic side of the MCU. The more grounded and relatable the better. It doesn't help that when James Gunn was fired it ended what I think they were going to do and that is put him in charge of the cosmic stuff. While they let him come back and do the third Guardians movie they kind of screwed themselves over big-time by not allowing to have a bigger role in the overall franchise. I actually think James Gunn could have made Captain Marvel interesting.
Spider-Man is never going to be treated like he's a standalone character who never interacts with other superheroes as long as the MCU exists. Deal with it.
Being in the MCU did not require that Peter Parker become a sidekick and a non-entity in movies that were supposed to be about him.
Iron Man 2, The Marvels, and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness overwhelmingly show the correct way to put Guest Characters in a movie without having said characters become the star(s) of said movie.
Captain America: Civil War and even Spider-Man: No Way Home also do the same to a degree, but not with the same success as IM2, TM, and MoM.
Sidekicks don't usually take up the majority of the screentime.
Tony Stark was in Homecoming for about eight and a half minutes, Samuel Jackson was in Far From Home for about 9 minutes and Benedict Cumberbatch was in No Way Home for a whopping 12 and a half minutes.
Nah, that was Ben Mendelsohn.
If the writing treats a character like they're subservient or inferior to other characters, the amount of screentime that the first character has relative to the other characters is irrelevant.
The thing that makes Tony being in Homecoming and Happy and "Fury" being in Far From Home trash choices is not that they're there at all, but that they're used in such a way that completely undermines Peter Parker as a character.
That's not how it works.
When I Googled how long Samuel Jackson appeared in Far From Home as Nick Fury, the answer was 35 seconds. I actually had to ask how long Talos appeared in the movie.Nah, that was Ben Mendelsohn.
None of this is so.
I'm confused by this idea that she was supposed to be "the face of the MCU". I never really got the impression that was the plan, even after the first movie made $1.1 billion, they never really put the kind of emphasis on her you would expect them to put on "the face of the MCU".
And she's actually appeared more than a lot of the other characters, since being introduced in her movie in 2019, she's also appeared in the post-credits scene in Shang-Chi, Endgame, The Marvels, and one episode of Ms. Marvel and three episodes of What If...? which is actually a pretty decent number of appearances.