Spoilers Captain Marvel - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
^ Perfect analysis of Steve Rogers.
He's the one of the very few MCU characters who always had a genuine, strong moral compass that did not need an external event or shock to the system to set on the right course, which is what other MCU characters required.
Last edited:
One could even argue he lost course somewhere along the way and was showing growth in the wrong direction by Civil War.
I did and I get why you are asking.
I was disappointed, not upset by her lack of emotion.
She was going for "stoic strength" and all I got was "bland".
I like my "supers" more on the Ironman\Thor spectrum. Quippy, smartasses that wear their emotions on their sleeves. But IMO Brie just sleepwalked thru that entire movie. Don't get me wrong I really wanted to like this movie and maybe with another actress I would have. At the very least I have the information I need for when she shows up in "Endgame". Like I said in my post, hopefully in an ensemble cast she will be more likeable and personable.
I enjoyed this a lot. I’d heard mixed reports, mainly WOM (the professional reviews were mostly positive) so I feared a letdown. So it definitely exceeded expectations. But it wasn’t the triumph of low expectations, I thought it was a good movie.
I don’t really know much about Captain Marvel’s history and background and so enjoyed how the film gradually revealed her origin, as oppose to the more linear origin movie. Didn’t see “the twist” coming, due to that lack of familiarity; it was nice to see Ben Mendelssohn cast against type. He makes a great baddie but he was clearly having fun as a goodie.
On that note, SLJ hasn’t been this much fun in a Marvel film, if any film, in a long time. Loved this slightly more mellow Fury (pun ruthlessly intended).
Absolutely loved Brie in the lead. There was a slightly off-kilter quality to her performance in the trailers which made sense when you saw the movie - she was a person trying to find herself. You could see Carol/Vers grow into herself and become more at ease and human as the movie went along. Great chemistry with her co-stars.
I voted A-. Totally psyched for Endgame now.
I don’t really know much about Captain Marvel’s history and background and so enjoyed how the film gradually revealed her origin, as oppose to the more linear origin movie. Didn’t see “the twist” coming, due to that lack of familiarity; it was nice to see Ben Mendelssohn cast against type. He makes a great baddie but he was clearly having fun as a goodie.
On that note, SLJ hasn’t been this much fun in a Marvel film, if any film, in a long time. Loved this slightly more mellow Fury (pun ruthlessly intended).
Absolutely loved Brie in the lead. There was a slightly off-kilter quality to her performance in the trailers which made sense when you saw the movie - she was a person trying to find herself. You could see Carol/Vers grow into herself and become more at ease and human as the movie went along. Great chemistry with her co-stars.
I voted A-. Totally psyched for Endgame now.
No - if there was ONE regret he had in his entire existence as Captain America, it was what he now knows actually happened to his best friend Bucky Barnes; and that's his one personal foil/flaw in that he'll sacrifice himself and even others if it helps or saves Bucky.
According to one article, the curent Carol Danvers (comic book and movie version) isn't anywhere as good as the original comic book version:
Claremont’s Carol Danvers Was Tough, Vulnerable & Real
Personally, I think that the writer of this article just expected Carol in the movie to show a lot of skin as in the 1970's comic book, but others reading this may think differently.
Claremont’s Carol Danvers Was Tough, Vulnerable & Real
Personally, I think that the writer of this article just expected Carol in the movie to show a lot of skin as in the 1970's comic book, but others reading this may think differently.
Excatly what the article I posted a link to was getting at.
I noted that that article didn't mention that when Claremont imported the character over to uncanny X-Men, he was also the one who created the near cosmic level Binary power set.
And while I think this writer has his biases, he's not wrong about Chris Claremont. Absolutely one of the best.
We like what we like.
I like and wish for variety. Every superhero being a smartass becomes boring and bland. Like the banter in the Lethal Weapon films. First one was great. Second one was good. Third one the banter is starting to wear thin, and by the fourth film the smartass back and forth is excruciatingly painful. The banter in these superhero flicks are largely forgettable (and are 10 minutes after the film ends). Nobody is quoting these films like The Princess Bride. So the fact Brie Larson's Captain Marvel is not hurling more forgettable quips into the abyss doesn't bother me.
Which is why I wonder, how come the massive hate-on for Justice League and BvS?
You'll find that nobody quote lines from Western, or from other older movies that have quips, either.
I do and I'm somebody. Jesus told me so.
There's a difference between variety and quality. I love Man of Steel. I wanted DC's more serious take to be a huge success. A different, equally good take from the MCU. But BVS was just not a good movie.
And Justice League was not only a terrible movie, it wasn't even different anymore. It just tried to ape the funny lightheartedness and didn't even manage that very well. Which is without even mentioning it having the worst FX I've ever seen in the genre due to being idiotically rushed.
Helping Bucky on the lam is defensible, given that he had a legitimate fear that Bucky would be suicided in custody. And his desperation to deal with presumed situation in Siberia is also understandable.
But I find it difficult to sympathize with his uncompromising position on the Accords.
He says, “If we sign, we give up our right to choose.” We have be able to make our own decisions about when and how to fight, right? But that’s exactly what Stark, Banner and Barton were trying to do when then set out to create Vision, and Rogers tried to stop them and scolded them for not following the chain of command — the chain of command in this case being Rogers. The issue is not that the other Avengers have decided to submit to authority, the issue is that they have decided to submit to an authority other than Rogers.
This is a telling exchange:
Stark: I’m trying to stop you from tearing the Avengers apart.
Rogers: You did that when you signed the Accords.
Stark, Rhodes, Romanov and Vision are all solidly pro-Accords. Rogers is the only dissent. Everybody else who fights on Team Cap does so out of personal loyalty to him; none of them ever expresses any issue with the Accords.Rogers: You did that when you signed the Accords.
If Rogers is the only one opposed to the Accords, when at least four members of the team are solidly for them, how come it’s everybody else that’s tearing the team apart, and not him? Because he’s the boss. He makes a decision and expects everybody to fall in line. It’s their duty to do what he thinks is right, not his duty to do what they think is right. Erskine picked him because he didn’t have that arrogant sense of entitlement back in 1943.
Repeatedly, Stark tries to talk to Rogers and work with him, and Rogers just shuts him down every time.
At one point, Stark tells Rogers, “Documents can be amended.” At this point, Rogers, Barnes and Wilson are all in custody and in no position to bargain. (Nobody has any idea Zemo is about to activate the Winter Soldier, causing all hell to break loose and allowing Rogers and Wilson to escape.) Still, Stark shows an interest in compromising. All Rogers has to do is agree in principle to accept some reasonable oversight, and then they can has out the details of what reasonable oversight is and ensure that it really is reasonable. Rogers doesn’t seem interesting in discussing it.
At the airport, Stark announces a 12-hour deadline and asks Rogers, “Can you work with me?” There are deals to be had. In 12 hours, Team Cap can deal with Siberia while Stark plays some hardball with Ross, extracting reasonable assurances of fair treatment for Rogers and friends and refusing to hand them over until those assurances are available. This is Tony Stark we’re talking about. Surely he would agree to that, or some other deal that accommodates Rogers’s legitimate concerns. But Rogers chooses to fight rather than negotiate.
Over and over again, Stark asks Rogers to talk to him so they can find mutually acceptable solutions, and Rogers refuses the offers. If only Rogers had been willing to talk to Stark and look for those mutually acceptable solutions, he could have protected Barnes and dealt with Siberia without tearing the Avengers apart. His refusal to listen to and accommodate the concerns of his teammates makes him unfit to command the team anymore.
Question: What’s is so bad about the Avengers being ‘torn apart?’
I mean, we know it’s bad because ‘Infinity War is coming.’
But in-universe, what does it matter if the group disbands, Steve retires, etc? The world...still has a superhero team? Captain America was dead for 70 years, and the world spun on.
(And hell, we see what it ‘means’ in IW. Outside the bruised feelings on Tony’s end, the answer is ‘absolutely goddamn nothing.’)
Things change. People change. The Avengers one day breaking up is inevitable, and it’s not like Steve ever indicated that he joined the Avengers just for the pleasure of their company. That line is meant to reveal as much about Tony, as it does about Steve.
Notably: that Tony would rather Steve set aside all his values, and regularly put his life in the line for a dangerous job that he no longer wants to do. Because Tony sees Steve quitting as destroying his surrogate family, and a big knock to his self worth. Which is what happens when you use others as a way of determining your self worth. Your friends are their own people, not your props.
All of which is fine. Stark’s meant to be a flawed hero. But you can’t erase the ‘flaw’ part.
(Also, Clint is retired in CW and Tony gives no fucks. So much for the tragedy of ‘tearing apart the team’, Tony.)
Last edited:
I would argue that even Claremont hadn't quite figured things out by the time the book was cancelled, but it was definitely on its way. I'd argue the bones of the character were created by Claremont and this film wouldn't be the way it was without him (even if it clearly also wouldn't be here without Kelly Sue DeConnick).
My hate for BvS has to do with Zack Snyder's bombastic effects style and thin, nonsensical, storytelling. I have had zero desire to see Justice League because of it. Man of Steel was mostly silliness.
Ben Affleck surprised me though and was great as Batman. Henry Cavill fantastic Superman. Gal Gadot brilliant as Wonder Woman. Jesse Eisenberg's Lex Luther was terrible.
Zack Snyder and lousy scripts are the reason for strong dislike and distrust of DCU movies. Still trying to work my self up to see Aquaman.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
