@therealsilvermane

I've written ad nauseam why I loved Captain Marvel. I'll paste one past post here: "I'll argue that the story in Captain Marvel was actually really tight, and very good. In fact, I'd say the film's narrative is among the tighter of the MCU movies. From the start, we're introduced to our three main characters, Carol Danvers, and the two elders in her life, Yonn Rogg and Talos, each who are on different sides of Carol. Then, from the point that Vers becomes a fish out of water, very early on, our story has one focus, for Carol to stop the Skrulls and find the truth of Dr Lawson before they do. Every scene in the film serves that narrative. There aren't long drawn out fight scenes in the middle act like we find in a lot of MCU films, or a return to where we once were. For instance, as great a film as Black Panther was, one could argue that the Korea sequence was a little too long. In Spiderman Homecoming, I started getting a little tired of Tony Stark constantly showing up to save Peter Parker and then scold him for being a kid. Captain Marvel's narrative, on the other hand, drives forward at a pretty fast pace with very little looking backwards. And towards the end of Carol's mystery road trip, rather than giving us the predictable outcome, the filmmakers switch it around on us, showing us that Carol's Kree outlook has been a lie. I love love love Captain Marvel. You don't have to like it, but objectively speaking, I don't think one can argue that the movie doesn't have a good story. Captain Marvel is different for sure, but the narrative is there." I loved seeing the world of Hala at the beginning, seeing this new world that wasn't treated like a joke in the Guardians movie. I wanted to see more of it. I thought Carol's mystery mission on Earth was an easy follow and enjoyed her interaction with young Fury. I loved her found relationship with Maria Rambeau, and enjoyed how they didn't just cut to a joke during that deeper moment, but went with it, and allowed the emotion to come out with that hug between lost friends. I loved the humor from Sam Jackson and especially Talos. Being a fan of those first early stories from Marvel Super Heroes and Captain Marvel from 1968, I loved how they were mostly faithful to that, using the character of Dr Lawson (even though changing Mar Vell to a woman) and made the setting a military base. I loved the music, both the score and soundtrack. I've always loved Skrulls so I loved seeing them done well on the big screen. And I thought the action was more than enough for me. And again, I thought Brie Larson was great in the role. And that's my opinion.

Eh, I'd argue that, outside of the Kree-Skrull War and Mar Vell's death story, Captain Mar Vell wasn't that significant. He did face Thanos many times in the Jim Starlin stories, but Mar Vell was never really an active participant in the greater Marvel Universe, outside of the Kree Skrull War and his death. And he wasn't significant enough to fans or Marvel to keep alive even, so Marvel Comics killed him. And after he died, fans didn't miss him, because he really had no fans. The character didn't sell very well. The movie does diverge from the comics after the explosion. Carol is not taken to Hala by Yonn Rogg (who dies during the explosion that transforms Carol). Captain Mar Vell, in stories from 1969 and later stories was at odds with the Kree Empire and the Supreme Intelligence, but Carol never became a citizen of Hala as far as we know in the comics. However, there was a ten year period between the 1969 explosion story and Carol's reemergence as Ms Marvel in 1977 where anything could be possible. As Binary, Carol Danvers disappeared into space for several years. There is a history of disappearance and amnesia with Carol Danvers in the comics, and I do like how the filmmakers made that part of the story. And no, I don't recall a story where Carol Danvers was personally sympathetic to the Skrull race. But as you've said, the MCU movies both take from the comics and diverge from the comics. They can't and shouldn't be exactly like the comics. The comic stories have years to tell their stories, the movies have hours. The comics stories are dated and aren't exactly big movie screenplay quality (ie Donald Blake running into a cave from aliens and finding a wooden stick and accidentally becoming Thor doesn't really work nowadays and lacks drama or character development), so they need to be updated a bit. And since it's Marvel itself making these movies, you can see the MCU movies as a continuing evolution of who these characters are. Look at Tony Stark. He was a bore before RDJ reimagined him as a ham in the movies, and now in the comics, his personality matches that of RDJ. It's all an organic process between the comics and the movies, especially when it's the same company making both.

In the Guardians of the Galaxy movie, don't confuse the Xandarians of the Nova Empire with the Kree (they're confusable). In the movie, the Nova Empire has a peace agreement with the Kree Empire. Ronan is in disagreement with this treaty, so he becomes a zealot or whatever.

The movie's origin story was actual pretty faithful to the Stan Lee and Roy Thomas stories from 1968. The movie just made Mar Vell a woman. Just like the comics, Mar Vell was a Kree spy on a military base, took the name of Dr. Lawson, and was at odds with Yonn Rogg. There was still a human between Mar Vell and Yonn Rogg named Carol Danvers who gets caught in an alien explosion transforming her. In the comics, both Kree and Skrull are bad. And in the comics, even as far back as the Stan Lee Jack Kirby stories, Skrulls are sometimes shown in a sympathetic light. This was especially so after John Byrne had Galactus destroy the Skrulls throneworld back in the 80's, leaving them homeless. More recently, the Super Skrull is a hero in the comics who teams with the Guardians of the Galaxy.

Okay, so maybe list a few things you wish Marvel hadn't changed?

Fair enough

Yeah, I haven't figured out how to hide content in these forums yet

I saw the scene as a joke at Eugene's expense, in part because it's funny he hits himself with the nunchucks, and in part because he's Asian. It's as if the filmmakers said, "hey, Asian people are stereotypically supposed to be good at martial arts, but this kid obviously isn't as he hits himself while trying to use Bruce Lee's weapon of choice." If Pedro or Freddy had picked up the nunchucks, it still would have been funny, but without the added joke layer of the kid being Asian. That's why I saw it as not only poking fun at Eugene's ineptness, but also poking fun at his ethnicity.

Hulk can.

Captain Marvel needs $24 million to hit the mark, it's at $376million now. Going into weekend it'll prob have $378 mil, and get maybe $6-7 million wkend to about $385mil. As we approach Endgame, if there is one movie that may actually benefit from that impending tsunami, it'll be Captain Marvel being she's a big part of that. If my estimation is right, after this weekend, Captain Marvel will only need $15 mil to hit the mark and will still be in theaters a month after Endgame's release (MCU movies stay in theaters a long time if you look at their history). With the added interest from Endgame, Captain Marvel is a lock to get a measly $15 million more and hit $400 million domestic at least by May if not before Endgame.

Your opinion is just that. Your opinion. You thought CM was mediocre, I thought it was one of the better MCU films, and personally it’s my favorite. I’ve already posted many times why I think it’s a good movie and I also like to think I know what I’m talking about. Hope you don’t think Shazam! is a great movie by comparison. Also, I think most of us are aware that a female led movie can be mediocre, which has been the problem in the past. Elektra and Catwoman are among the worst superhero movies all time, and most of us agree on that.

Adam Warlock aint making his MCU debut in Endgame. If it's not obvious from Infinity War, this 2-part story (so glad they didn't milk this into some WB style trilogy) isn't a verbatim adaptation of Jim Starlin's Infinity Gauntlet. There's talk of time travel, major heroes not returning, this movie's going beyond Gauntlet. James Gunn has a plan for Warlock so he should debut in GOTG3. But if there were a character to fill that Adam Warlock role from Infinity Gauntlet, a cosmic x-factor character who comes out of nowhere to help turn the tide, I'd say that's Captain Marvel. Of course, the point's not to kill Thanos, it's to bring everybody back, and not all the cosmic muscle in the world can do that. This movie's going to be more intellectual than people are expecting I think, a chess game.

I thought it was a little awkward when little Eugene picks up the nunchaku and hits himself with it. Did the filmmakers have Eugene do that because he's Chinese-American? And was that maybe a little racist? I wonder if China thought that was funny?

$400 million domestic is now a certainty for CM.

The genius of Ang Lee's 2003 Hulk movie is really not written about enough, obviously. Outside of it being just a comic book movie, thematically and technically, Ang did things in that movie that are truly special, and was a kind of cinematic precursor to Lee's Oscar Winner film Life of Pi. For instance, those comic book panel edits in the movie are meant to be more than just an imitation of a comic book. I'm a big fan of Al Ewing's current Immortal Hulk series right now, and it seems he has even taken inspiration from Ang Lee's forgotten work of film art. It's great what the MCU is doing right now with its focus on character and interconnectedness, but it's also a loss that we'll never go back to those times of standalone movies where the filmmakers could try new things, though Ragnarok was a bit of an experiment itself.

Somebody brought up a good point. Billy and Shazam! are obviously the same person, so why does Shazam! act more immature than his actual child version? When we see 14 year old Billy, he's kind of a moody loner kid, while Shazam! is almost the exact opposite, fun loving and sociable. If they're going to be different, then Shazam! at least should have had the wisdom of Solomon, which he clearly never displayed until the end when he realizes power must be shared, which is a total King Solomon move.

I'm kinda new around here, and I had posted a picture of a book of mine with the competitor's slab on the forum. CGC removed the picture for me and hit me with a warning. You ought to repost the picture with the top info cut off.

Yeah, I think Shazam! would have been better served screening after Endgame. There might have been some strategy releasing it on the heels of Captain Marvel, but Endgame is going to probably kill Shazam’s box office.

The idea of Billy sharing his wealth of power at the end, and saying "What's the point of power if you can't share it?" is what made me think there was a slight socialism message, which I didn't mind as I lean a little left anyway. I get that it also added to the family support message, too. But I think the end scene resonated especially with the kids in the audience, because in the end, it's not just Billy who gets to play, but all the kids. As I said, I liked the message, didn't have a problem with it. I did leave the theater wondering if that might have been better left for the sequel, and just let Billy shine and prove his heroism in his origin movie.

I think the mirrored story of Dr Savanna's family sort of drove home my perception of biological family in the movie. They were so mean to him as a kid and Dr Savana did them 100 times worse as an adult. I think I might have even appreciated some glimmer of caring from Dr Savanah. I mean he just tossed his brother out the window without a thought and left his dad alone with that monster. I know his dad was a jerk, but that's his dad. Billy's scene with his real mom was pretty sad and terrible for Billy. Maybe some redeeming moment for the mother or something? I know that can be a reality, but this is a movie with lots of biological families in the seats. Just my perception of it. I have a feeling other people in the audience felt the same way, though.

I liked Shazam!, but I also had some problems with it. The best parts were the funny scenes that riffed off "Big", where our "hero" is trying to be an adult. With the wisdom of Solomon, I figured Billy would have made better choices (was ;this movie Shazam or Hazam?). The messages I got from the movie were mixed. While I appreciated the theme of family, I also got that biological family sucks? The 7 deadly sins were a little weird, and the third act started to drag until that surprise ending (I haven't read the New 52 Shazam!), which I totally did not see coming, but the little kid sitting next to me called out (saw it in a theater full of kids from a boys home or something which was interesting). The theater audience definitely perked up after that. Not sure how I feel about that scene cinematically, but I liked the message of power. A bit socialistic, but a little socialism never hurt anybody. I give it a 6/10. While I am a bit biased, I can say I definitely enjoyed the MCU's Captain Marvel more. I've gone back to see that film multiple times, while I think one viewing of Shazam! was enough for me.

$400mil domestic also the next big milestone.

YESSS!

Another thing to consider, and maybe more important, is the timeline of Fury's Avengers Initiative. If Fury were made Director of SHIELD so early on, per the article's assumption, could we assume that Fury would have pursued the Avengers Initiative as official SHIELD policy that much sooner as well in the 90's? Perhaps if we go with Captain Marvel's timeline that Fury creates the Avengers Initiative IDEA in 1995 after that movie's events, we can assume he got lots of push back on the idea from his superiors who would probably just rather nuke everybody like the World Council wanted in Avengers or Pierce in Winter Soldier. And maybe, if we assume Fury ascended to SHIELD Director in the 2000's after 9/11 (if there is a 9/11 in the MCU and before the series of events in Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor), is it then possible that he, as Director, was able to fully make the Avengers Initiative an official SHIELD policy, thus leading him to confront Tony Stark in 2008 about the Initiative? I think this timeline works a little better with the rest of the MCU, rather than the idea that Fury has been SHIELD Director for like 15 years or so already prior to him meeting Tony Stark in 2008. I guess we'll learn more about Fury's past in the upcoming Black Widow film, and I'm sure it will play more in sync with Captain Marvel.

Yes, but I don't think the photo taken five years after Bogota (a country which fits with Fury's likeness for countries that start with a B) necessarily means that was Fury's promotion to Director of SHIELD, though Pierce says that event played a part in Fury's later promotion. Five years, in my opinion, is just too little time for a SHIELD station deputy to be promoted to Director. I do find it more than creepy though that it's a HYDRA Agent who is responsible for making Fury the Director. I guess I'm also saying the Russo Brothers aren't infallible. As cool as their MCU films have been, of all the MCU films, theirs have the most plot holes or illogical character moves I can remember. For instance, in Winter Soldier, why does HYDRA wait until Fury is in his SHIELD armored SUV to take him down? Why not just arrest him quietly in the elevator like they tried with Steve Rogers? Or have Winter Soldier shoot him in the parking lot? Their timeline of Nick Fury's SHIELD career doesn't have to be strict canon. Maybe Pierce was even fuzzy with his details. None of them can be trusted anyway. When we meet Fury in Captain Marvel in 1995, he does seem a little low on the totem pole, so yeah, maybe there's some inconsistency there, with the Winter Soldier timeline as spelled out by Alexander Pierce, but it's not glaring in my opinion.