She'll only use them for a few minutes in the last act of every episode.
Spoilers Wonder Woman - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Commander Richard
- Start date
Yeah Wonder Woman debuted just before the US got involved in WWII so her character in the comics actually fought with the JSA in that war. I guess the movie producers decided that it would be to similar to Captain America if she was placed in WWII so they decided to get super creative and have the movie Wonder Woman start out in WWI or as it was called at the time The Great War. I agree the movie was similar to Captain America regardless of what war they decided to stick her in. They just should have had her in WWII and come up with a better story. I gave the movie a C. It had some good parts but nothing spectacular.
The fighting style of the Amazons made little sense to me. Why jump and do ballet spins in the air before you attack? It just gives time for your enemies on the ground to shoot and attack while you're spinning and doing acrobatics in the air.
Captain America--whether in name, image or overall character was known in the culture (particularly Western culture) to a large degree. Going as far back as the legendary film Easy Rider, one of the main characters was nicknamed "Captain America" and the character has had some kind of direct cultural / media presence (and endless merchandising) in every decade since the 1960s. So, the Hulk was hardly the only one known to the public.
The MCU focused on characters with a strong character / story base to draw on. For more than a half century, Iron Man, Captain America the Hulk and Thor have all had popular storylines as individual characters (and in group situations) that shaped a large part of the published Marvel lines, so any studio would make the rational, profit-minded choice to begin their film universe there.
Last edited:
If we stick to what was 50 years ago, it's always just gonna be white dudes all the time...
To be frank, those are really stupid reasons not to make a movie about Kamala Khan rather than Carol Danvers. Being inspired by Captain Marvel is a rather insignificant aspect of her story. You could pretty much ignore that tiny detail (something they always do anyway when they adapt those origin stories for the big screen) or let her be inspired by another established MCU character if you must keep that aspect. I just think she a more interesting character with the potential to be a bigger hit for Marvel.
To be frank, I never said this is reason enough not to make a movie featuring Kamala.
What I *did* say is that it's just a bothersome matter of plot logistics as to how they can use *that* name in the MCU as it is. It is after all the name of the company and just from a branding perspective, not something to be tossed around carelessly. The question is how to get from here to there.
Imagine for a moment one were to try and introduce Ironheart right after the first Iron Man movie but pretend the one has nothing to do with the other, without actually changing any core details of Riri's character. You can't because the two are inexorably tied at the conceptual level. If Iron Man didn't exist yet it'd be easier, but he does so the link must be addressed. Just as it would in a scenario where Carol shows up before Kamala.
You can do it in theory, but in order for it to be credible Carol needs some breathing room to establish herself first.
It's all rather academic though since the fact of the matter is that the Carol Danvers movie is well underway and even if a Kamala project was greenlit right now it wouldn't be in theatres for several years.
Don't mistake my pessimism for a distaste for the character. Far from it; I'd *love* to see a Ms. Marvel movie and there's never been a better, more important time for it. That said, I want to see it done right and for the right reasons. I feel very strongly that this is not a character one should not approach lightly.
Sorry, I might have read you wrong there. I thought you said you were “having a problem with Kamala being part of the MCU” because of “the plot logistics of her name”. I understood the “having a problem with it” part as you saying that alone would be reason enough not to make a movie. Again, sorry.
I guess I still don't see what the problem is, though, and I think you are overstating the importance of how she got her name. There are a number of ways you could have Kamala Khan the character and call her Captain or Ms. Marvel without her having been a Carol Danvers fangirl. I just don't see her backstory and her name as “inexorably tied”.
At this point I don't think we'll ever see Kamala Khan, a dark-skinned Muslim girl, as the main character of a superhero blockbuster movie. Marvel just wants to play it safe with this one, unfortunately.
Really? Which is that?In other news, there's a Muslim-American character, played by an Iranian actress, starring on a DC TV show this fall...
Well it's not like the Superman/Supergirl thing there their names are tied to their origins so they could in theory exist independently of one another.
Although technically their powers both originate from the Cree, their nature and circumstance are entirely different: Kamala is one of *thousands* of Inhumans while Carol was a normal human who done got zapped. Carol is called "Captain Marvel" because of Mar-Vell. Kamala is called "Ms. Marvel" because she *wants* to emulate Carol. That's their only direct connection: hero worship.
Sure you *could* call Kamala "Ms. Marvel" just because, but you really shouldn't. I mean half the point of this character is to provide a positive role model, yes? So I think it would be a mistake to cut out or gloss over the part of the character that is *explicitly* about the importance of positive role models.
Look, if it was just about making the best possible Kamala Khan movie then sure, they could make that right now, no problem. Stick in a different version of Carol, maybe even the Mile Morales version of Spider-Man and make it entirely it's own thing. But this isn't just one movie, it's part of a larger franchise that has a lot of parts in motion, lots of plates to keep spinning and since that's what pays for this whole rodeo, it's needs as a whole must be addressed. It is after all called show *business*.
Honestly, I think it's inevitable. It'll just take a little while is all. Even at three movies a year plus several TV shows on the go, Marvel has one hell of a backlog of characters to get through.
Also remember they're about to release a movie starring a non-Christian African man and portraying their society as the more advanced one. I'd hardly call that "playing it safe" in those particular terms.
I'm not defending Marvel's tardiness, indeed I think a Black Widow movie is long overdue, it's just how things stand at the moment it'd be impractical to expect a Ms. Marvel movie or TV show before 2020 at the earliest.
You probably could do Kamala first. But, as someone who is glad Kamala exists for the people who like her but who personally thinks she's a pretty mediocre character, quite frankly I'm glad Carol Danvers (one of my top 10 Marvel heroes) is getting a movie and I won't be bothered if Kamala never shows up anywhere. I was just using the plot point of Kamala being inspired by Carol as a good way to introduce Kamala, but I don't care if she shows up and if its a choice between her or Carol then, in my opinion, Carol is the superior character.
While I do like Kamala, I largely agree with Kirk (Hey! It happens sometimes!) that Carol is the better character.
Also, I would also ask a similar question of a Kamala movie that I did of a Natasha movie-- What does this bring to the MCU story-scape? Again, like I said with Natasha, I have no doubt that a good movie could be crafted around Kamala, I just don't see what it will bring to the larger MCU other than the story of a teen-ager super-hero and Spider-Man is the far superior and much more obvious (and profitable) choice to do that.
Besides, Kamala is an Inhuman, and that particular story-point is rather confined to the TV shows.
Also, I would also ask a similar question of a Kamala movie that I did of a Natasha movie-- What does this bring to the MCU story-scape? Again, like I said with Natasha, I have no doubt that a good movie could be crafted around Kamala, I just don't see what it will bring to the larger MCU other than the story of a teen-ager super-hero and Spider-Man is the far superior and much more obvious (and profitable) choice to do that.
Besides, Kamala is an Inhuman, and that particular story-point is rather confined to the TV shows.
Not really a problem depending on how the movie is structured. They don't need Mar-Vell to be a superhero in his own right for Carol's origin to play out, just have him play Abin Sur to her Hal Jordan and he's out of the movie before the second act. Job done.
Not sure it's quite that clearly quantifiable. Heroic core values and uniform design aside Carol and Kamala don't have much overlap when it comes to character and storytelling. So one can tell a story very well with one that you just couldn't with another.
This is not a zero-sum game. There's room for more than one teenager in the MCU and honestly, it's a bit myopic to define either of them in exclusively those terms. It's akin to saying "what would Carol Danvers bring to the Avengers? They already have two women already!"
Kamala isn't just a teenage girl, but a first generation immigrant Muslim American, with very loving but also very traditionally minded parents and all the complications that entails. If you can't see how that adds anything new to the mix (particularly now) then I honestly don't know what would.
So far, but there's nothing stopping the movie people from using it if they want to. Indeed the Cree have already shown up in GotG, so there's that. Still, if need be they can always come up with some other way she ended up with her "embiggening" powers. It's not like the Royal Family stuff is massively important to her story.
In the comics, she literally stumbles into a cloud of terrigen gas and immediately freaks out. Narrative speaking it could just as easily be some magical artifact, a random piece of alien tech, a mad scientist's basement experiment that blew up just as she happened to be strolling by...a fish oil pill contaminated by an unspecified alien compound...
RE: Teenage superheros-- I'm thinking in terms of Marvel Studios and their output. They have a very narrow niche and a limited amount of slots open every year and tend to struggle from repeating themselves as it is. If they hadn't gotten Spider-Man, then Ms. Marvel would be less repetitive. Everyone says "Marvel should make this movie and Marvel should make that movie" as if the thought were all there was to the process.
Last edited:
I'd hardly call teenagers or women "a very narrow niche" audience. I'm pretty sure together they make up a large chunk of the existing audience, never mind the population in general.
They don't seem to struggle at all having several movies a year starring middle aged white men, so I doubt having a second teenage lead of a different gender is liable to bring about the end times.
Failing that logic: perhaps wider representation in the starring roles would help to broaden the potential audience even further, yes?
You're assuming a consistency of plotting from a studio that just last year hired a freakin' trailer company to re-edit Suicide Squad, and which had no idea while making Man of Steel that Gotham and Metropolis practically adjoin each other.I find it much more plausible that the movie's happy, pretty-sunset coda was a reshoot to send the audience out on an upbeat note, rather than the downbeat and narratively consistent one they'd originally intended. Or maybe it wasn't a reshoot at all, and Jenkins was ignoring that clear implication of BvS from the start. Either way, I'm about zero percent convinced that Snyder didn't mean for Diana to have turned her back on humanity in general when he made BvS.
Yes, Gotham and Metropolis adjoined each other across a bay-so what? This is a rebooted universe, for all we know, they've always been like that. It doesn't really matter, and it makes the final fight more interesting due to the fact that both heroes have to join together to save the mom of one of them and to prevent both cities from being destroyed by Doomsday. As for Diana joining, maybe she wanted to feel useful after centuries of not doing anything, or maybe she realized that something bad was happening and wanted to join the boys in stopping it.
She was the only child born onto an island of immortal women and as such, she was given tutoring (have you even read the original origin story? At all?)
Basically, she reminds me of Annabeth Chase and Percy Jackson from the Percy Jackson novel/movie series, except that she's the only other child of a union between a god and a mortal in this story.
Zeus is still dead; he was able to help conceive Diana as a weapon to use against Ares before Ares killed him. Ares wants to kill off humanity and presumably replace it with something of his own creation that's better than man.
I'll grant you the first point, but as for the second, maybe it can be entered through sheer force of will, for some reason.
Many people (like this guy) think that Kamala Khan is a minor character that shouldn't be given a movie, or a comic book at all....just sayin'. And to be fair, the main counterpart to Wonder Woman at Marvel is Captain Marvel.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Sticky
- Poll
