Gatsby77

Depends how you're defining McGuffin. That she's powered by an Infinity Stone? So is Adam Warlock...and Vision...and Doctor Strange...and Thanos. That it's just the *thing* -- random object that's the source of her power? So's Green Lantern's ring,..and Hulk's Gamma rays...and Daredevil's radioactive spill...and Spider-Man's radioactive bite..and Cap's steroids...and yes - the Infinity Gauntlet itself. Put another way, I'd argue it's harder to find a mainstream powered superhero whose powers didn't originate with a McGuffin.

To be fair, at least no one in this thread has literally accused Carol Danvers of being a "Mary Sue." Obviously it's hard to be a Mary Sue when you've basically got the powers of Superman.

You're missing the point. There is a world of difference between "being well-educated on comic book movies" and "being well-educated on movies." The Good the Bad and the Ugly (and about another 1/2 dozen of the spaghetti westerns) aren't revered because their "great Westerns" -- they're revered because they're "great movies" -- as in, among the top 200 ever produced in 100 years of film. Seriously. And yes, I get the ridiculousness (and futilty) of arguing about the merits of any movie -- let alone a popcorn comic book blockbuster -- anonymously on the interenet. But you should respect the opinions of others on this particular movie who may (gasp!) know a bit more about film, structure, plot, etc. than you. Not that you can't have an opinion as a comic book movie expert, but there are *many* others on these boards who are experts not just on comic books and comic book movies, but also have a deep reservoir of knowledge of film in general, as well as literature and other topics that inform their opinions on even such throw-away entertainment as Captain Marvel. You inspired my original ad hominem response when you all-but-acused another poster of making up the term "spaghetti Western." That showed not just disdain for a fellow poster but almost a willful ignorance of film as a whole. It was equivalent to claiming Harrison Ford is a famous actor because he starred in Expendables 3. So please, sit back, breathe, and enjoy having your perspective broadened a bit about some classic films that helped pave the way for us even to have movies about D-list comic book characters like Ms. Marvel in the first place.

Impressive. We live in a world where an Aquaman movie outgrossed each of the last _three_ live-action Spider-Man movies domestically.

Umm...dude? Thank you - I now know I no longer need to even read your thoughts on these movies - because you _clearly_ have no sense of film history. My favorite is still The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly -- specifically for that final Mexican stand-off scene where the camera repeatedly pans among all three of them.

She may have "demonstrated cosmic powers out of the gate" but it's clear -- as the movie progresses -- that she didn't have them to start. You're conflating the *way* the story is told (starting in media res when she's already a seasoned galactic warrior, with subsequent flashbacks to when she was merely human) with the actual story (and character) itself.

Exactly. But, like Carol, Diana was *always* a strong warrior - from the time she was a teen through the final scenes - when she realizes she's a god. Similarly, Carol was *always* strong and resilient, from the time she was a little girl to being a female AF test pilot in among a world of mostly male ones -- through to the accident, which gives her the powers of a god. Similar arcs. And from what I recall from Green Lantern: Emerald Dawn, like Carol, Hal Jordan was an arrogant even before being given the ring.

Ditto with Wonder Woman - and well, Thor. Also, Carol does go through an emotional arc in the film,even if she didn't begin specifically as a weak pansy (a la Peter Parker, Steve Rogers). Separately, I wonder how much folks here would be complaining if this had been a Silver Surfer film rather than a Ms. Marvel one? Specifically with regard to the "over-powered" or even "what are her powers?" complaints. I've read maybe two dozen Silver Surfer comics and I'm still not exactly sure what the extent of his powers are.

Exactly. This. As I've noted before, Captain Marvel is very much like the first Captain America film -- from plot to timeline to the main character's basically flat demeanor. But no one leveled the same criticisms at that movie -- I think it's less about Captain Marvel's being a female and more that the character's not as well known to comic fans as Captain America, and folks resent her being such a late addition (whereas if she'd been introduced even back in 2016 - a la Doctor Strange) it'd be less of an issue. And in case no one's mentioned it lately, the Tesseract is the Space Stone.

Getting Gunn fired was/is one of his claims to fame. Must suck to realize it was all for naught.

Captain Marvel made $197 million domestic in its first week. And a CGC 8.5 copy of Marvel Super-Heroes # 13 sold yesterday for $2,045. Which is actually down from a few $3,000 sales in January, but still strikes this old-school collector as absurd.

This. I'm glad that Disney reinstated him since I think his firing was an over-reaction in these hyper-sensitive times. But... Guardians 2 was the worst MCU film I've seen outside of Thor: The Dark World. I hope he's got something new up his sleeve for the next chapter.

I thought Tessa Thompson showed a lot more range (and personality) in Ragnarok than in Creed 2.

I thought Affleck was a mediocre Batman. Maybe he looked the part, but I thought there was nothing - except a bit more body mass than usual - that he brought to the role. What made the difference in the overall portrayal was the writing. Insert Christian Bale w/ the exact same -script, I think the net effect would have been the same.

You have it reversed. The "fans" had the patience for it; it's the *general public* who didn't. Hence their (relative) box office failures. Again, we fans are (at best) 3% of the audience for these films.If literally everyone in the U.S. who has read a single Superman comic in the last 20 years went to see Man of Steel, it would have made less than $50 million at the domestic box office.

So...a percentage drop in-line with the percentage drops of the last four MCU films (Infinity War, Homecoming, Ant-Man and the Wasp and Black Panther). Sounds about right.

I don't think Endgame will (or should be) considered a failure if it only makes say...$1.4 bn. worldwide. That's: a) a normal percentage drop for even a highly-regarded sequel b) it will be _really_ hard to top the impact of Infinity War on a couple of levels. Including - seeing nearly _everyone_ interact for the first time - coming so soon after Black Panther - the emotional gut punch of the ending

I don't think Diana's ever referred to as Wonder Woman in her solo film.

IMO, Ragnarok was the funniest Marvel movie to date. That sounds like a bad thing, given that it features Thor, Hulk and Surtur with the fate of all of Asgard in the balance, but it _really_ surprised me with how good it was. Along with the slow realization that Chris Hemsworth is a better comedic actor than a dramatic one. In addition to this, he was brilliant hosting SNL, esp. his skit there that largely contributed to ending Iggy Azalea's career.

We don't know that. She did land in a Blockbuster Video, after all. For all we know, she went back and rented "Trial of the Incredible Hulk" sometime off-screen and thus knows exactly who Thor is.

Sure. But my $9.00 estimate was for 2011, and in 2D, with few, if any, IMAX screenings relative to today's market. And in 2011 there were also a lot more $6.00 matinees than say, today, that pulled down the average.

Here's where we disagree. *Some* of the Asgard scenes are spectacular; the movie as a whole? Not so much. My main issue with the Thor film (that kills its re-watchability) is the earthbound scenes. That are: - low-budget (meant what I said with much of it looking like it came out of that '90s C-list TV show Renegade) - low stakes (who cares if The Destroyer takes out a town?) - poorly cast (I believe Natalie Portman was miscast, and Kat Dennings' comic relief sidekick schtick was out-of-place) - even the "Thor adjusts to Earth" comedy was poorly executed Sure, it was exciting to *finally* see Thor, Odin, Loki, The Warriors Three, etc. on the big screen. But that doesn't mean that it was - in and of itself - a great film. Ragnarok? A great film, with _far_ more re-watchability than Thor or Thor 2. Ditto Iron Man.

This. This right here is proof that comic fans are almost irrelevant to the success (or failure) of most of these superhero films, and that they aren't (and shouldn't necessarily) be made with us in mind. I thought the Watchmen film was fantastic -- but, because it was made for comic book fans, it was basically impenetrable to general audiences, so it bombed. But "10% of the audience" didn't read Thor comics in the '70s or 80s, it was closer to 1%. My quick and dirty math: Thor made $181 million domestically in 2011. Let's assume they spent $9.00 per ticket (far above BoxOffice Mojo's average of $7.93 per). At $9.00 per ticket, roughly 20 million people went to see Thor in the theater. Then let's assume Thor averaged ~400,000 per issue in the '70s and '80s (based on April 1986 print run numbers of ~389,000 average - and this was smack in the sweet spot of Simonson's run). That means, at best, Thor's monthly print run (even if every copy was read) was just 2% of the 2011's films audience. Put another way, that fifty times as many people saw the film as read the comics back in the '80s. And that was for an early Phase One film.

That may well be. But to the general public, everything you wrote above applies equally to Captain America: The First Avenger as well. I agree with a few film critics who said it was basically a really good Phase 1 film, but released this year rather than in 2011. For me it was easily better than Thor, Thor 2, Iron Man 2, the Incredible Hulk, and even Ant-Man -- and given that she's a C-list character, that says a lot. Equivalent to if a solo Hawkeye movie came out as a spy thriller that did so well it suddenly launched a Jack Ryan / James Bond-style Hawkeye franchise. I'd be like: Huh?? Hawkeye???

Yeah - it started in Russia in 1917 in honor of women gaining suffrage there. So in was mostly limited to Communist (Russian Empire) countries until the 1960s, with the rise of the feminist movement in the U.S. in Europe. Okay, technically (per Wikipedia) it first started on March 8 in Germany in 1914 and was dedicated to giving women the right to vote. In 1914 it was celebrated in London with a womens' suffrage march and demonstration, but it was ithe push in Russia beginning in 1917 that really codified it as a continuing cultural event on Mar. 8 specifically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Women's_Day Interesting to me that women gained the right to vote in Russia in 1917 but not in the U.S. until 1920.