What are you crazy?! Do you know how many clickbait hot-take articles and "explanation" videos with the circles and arrows we'd have to endure if they didn't show *exactly* how Fury got the tesseract back? Doesn't bear thinking about!
Spoilers Captain Marvel - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Honestly, I thought Goose was a fun idea that was way overdone. His Fury's eye subplot stepped all over the climax of the movie so by the time they got to the hairball, I was completely done with it.
The eye scratch itself should've been a post credits scene instead of Fury picking a new eyeball. Keep Coulson there for maximum comedic effect. Goose could've just coughed up the tesseract in that scene and been done with it (possibly the reason he scratches is because Fury's upset at the mess, or he stops halfway through being chased away to leave the cube on the floor in front of them). The would leave plenty of time for another short credits scene - and Yon Rogg facing the SI as himself having to explain his failure would've been a cool option for that.
Honestly, I think it's fine as is.
And really speaking, I'd hardly call goose scratching his eye a "sub plot". It's a beat, at most. There is however a running gag throughout the movie of Fury injuring his eye and people asking how it is. The bit with Goose was just the punchline.
And for those that think Furly loosing his eye to a cat scratch is anticlimactic, I'm pretty sure if he went into any bar in the galaxy and said "I lost my eye because I pissed off a Flerken", the response is likely to be "You pissed off a Flerken and all you lost was an eye!?"
Different strokes, obviously. I just don't think that punchline belonged in that part of the movie. I'd have thought it perfectly brilliant in a post credits scene, after the story is properly wrapped up. It's like the Captain America cameo in Homecoming - 'Disappointment' was an incredible punchline, but putting something like that in the background of Peter fighting the Vulture would've been super weird.
And for the record I don't mind Fury losing his eye that way at all. Nick Fury shouldn't be pure badass with a side of badass at all times - everybody has to be human at some point, it's just some people are better at hiding it than others.
Last edited:
So you think you’d be able to “talk down Zod” in those circumstances (after all, you’re not a child)? I remain sceptical.
As for Carol Danvers, while she acquired her full powers in the middle of the conflict, she, unlike Clark Kent, had years of combat training AND partial power—hardly a neophyte to significant battles. Moreover, once she is fully powered, she is far more powerful than any of her opponents. Contrast that with Clark—Zod is equally powerful and basically trained from birth to be a warrior/master combat strategist. The only edge Clark has—and it’s fleeting—is dealing with sensory overload and flight (the latter being brand new for him anyway). Carol was in a far better position to overpower the Kree than Clark ever was vs the Kryptonians. In effect, she becomes Zod (in powers, not behaviour) but without an equal to oppose her.
I have only seen Captain Marvel once. I liked it a lot. I can't really grade it yet, have to see it again to take in details. I love action movies, but have to see them twice get more than the action down. I have a cat so I really loved Goose. And so did the people we saw the movie with. Kids love Goose. I laughed when I found out finally how Fury lost his eye.
I think you are misunderstanding the concept of fiction.
That story about Fury and Goose gets out to the wider galaxies, and people from a couple hundred species are going to stare in shock and amazement.
No, but I think you’re misunderstanding a central theme in the film.
You should stick to discussing the posts instead of posters.
Such a personal comment could be considered trolling. Please do not do so again
The script wrote Superman into this situation. It didn't have to. Superman could have easily achieved victory by sending the villains back to the Phantom Zone--or depower them but that had already been done. The point being is that the final knock down dragged out fight scene was unnecessary. I found myself looking at my watch several times.
Superman rarely wins fights against equally powerful or superior enemies with brawn--it is almost always with brains and wit. And he still would have mourned his actions.
While it's true the script didn't need to do that, it was based on an event in the comic books, so it's not untrue to the character. In fact, that story, where Superman found himself in a position where killing his opponent was the only option, led to his decision to ensure he never found himself in that position again.
And? Of course it didn’t “have to”. It’s fiction. Clearly it was written that way because the filmmakers wanted it to be so. You’re free to dislike it but it doesn’t disqualify the concept in and of itself.
The villains (all but Zod) were sent back to the zone—and Superman was nearly dragged into the zone with them (I see no reason why it should have been “easily”, though). As for the final fight scene, I agree it could have been staged somewhat differently for reasons of pacing, as well as to more clearly distinguish it from earlier moments in the film.
This is true, if we look at the aggregate collection of Superman stories. But unlike the overwhelming majority of them, this is one where he’s on his first day on the job. He hasn’t yet developed the experience with his powers in this type of situation to make a different judgment call. That’s one of the primary points of the story. I’d wager that if this had been a pilot for a TV series, we would have seen him learn and develop into the character more familiar to everyone (much like Kirk in the Abrams films—another character who is seen BEFORE developing into the experienced version everyone knows, and whose choices were similarly slammed by some because they didn’t reflect the “idealized” version of the character).
As for Captain Marvel, the filmmakers took a different approach to how and when she developed her full potential, and that’s fine. But we don’t see her on her first day on the job, recently fully powered and untrained. Had that been the case, I would hope we would have seen a character that stumbled a bit more, struggled with choices, and made notable mistakes from which to learn—as did Kirk in the Abrams films and Superman/Clark in Man of Steel.
Superman (vol. 2) #22 (October 1988)
In the John Byrne run in the late 80s, I think. Superman ends up in a pocket dimension (where the Superboy who spent time with the Legion was from—since retconned away by numerous other stories). Zod and his two associates (similar to the Donner films but not with the same names, IIRC) have obliterated Earth and humanity and there is no apparent way to contain them to prevent similar horrors on other worlds, so Superman kills them with Kryptonite (it doesn’t affect him as he’s from another dimension).
Worth noting that this Superman is NOT a rookie, unlike in Man of Steel.
Thanks for the info, both y'all. If it was '88 though, how could it lead to Superman's decision not to kill? Wasn't he a "No killing!" guy long before that?
EDIT: Okay, I just realized that if it's Byrne that's after they started over, wasn't it? So technically Supes was doing a lot of stuff "for the first time" (Officially speaking.)
EDIT: Okay, I just realized that if it's Byrne that's after they started over, wasn't it? So technically Supes was doing a lot of stuff "for the first time" (Officially speaking.)
Yes. Otherwise you have to go back to the late 30s, when Superman was casually throwing thugs out windows and such, leading to fatal results.
Yeah it was the post-Crisis reboot where this story occurred.
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
