@therealsilvermane

10 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

I had read about that picture as well in a few articles. Here is where your declaration could go wrong in a few cases.

Captain Marvel Risks Creating A Winter Soldier Plot Hole

Now he didn't lose the eye yet at the end of Captain Marvel. But it would have been there would have been some form of damage to the area from that scratch.

As far as ending the debate about damage in battle, SHIELD being an espionage, special law enforcement, and counter-terrorism agency means there is a strong possibility of agents integrated in with military forces. Fury being an extremely capable agent would be one of those considered for such duties.

 

Interesting. The article, however, does assume that Fury is made Director of SHIELD only five years after being a station deputy at a South American SHIELD outpost. I find it unlikely Fury would be made Director of the whole dang thing only five years after being a "lowly" deputy, even if Fury did save a bunch of lives including Pierce's daughter in Bogota. Five years is too short a time for that. Twenty years is more likely. Conclusion: the photo can't be from Fury being sworn in as Director of SHIELD.

is it possible the article misquotes the movie, and this photo is actually of Fury being sworn in to SHIELD and the Bogota incident is five years after that swearing in? I have to go back and watch the movie now.

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

It is true the MCU can do whatever it wants with the future to explain past events. All indications from that Winter Solider scene is a mini explosion causing trauma to his eye and surrounding skin area. Unless the Skrulls to a scalpel and tried to go at the damage from multiple directions, leaving all those scars.

Just to add more stuff to what will probably be an eternal debate for MCU fans...in Winter Soldier, Alexander Pierce shows this photo to Steve Rogers of Fury and Pierce's first meeting when Fury was a Deputy Chief of SHIELD. Fury has both eyes in the photo. Going by that timeline, we know that Fury's eye accident did not happen while he was in the military, but after he joined SHIELD. The argument that the eye injury should have been from a war injury from Fury's military years must now be ruled out.

11 minutes ago, Cozmo-One said:

Wonder why they would make a contract like that? And I do find it a bit humorous of still using the Mississippi River as a demarcation line. There's always the Marvel-themed Disney cruises out of Florida though!

I think the contract is a leftover from the 90's before Disney bought Marvel. Back then, Marvel rented out their characters to everybody because they were bankrupt. I believe the contract gave Universal Orlando strict theme park rights to certain Marvel characters in the eastern USA.

3 hours ago, ExNihilo said:

Disney World still has their Tower of Terror and there are no plans at this time to convert it to a Marvel themed attraction.

Florida resident and WDW regular here. I can tell you right now, Disney can't have anything Avengers themed at the Florida parks because of the contract with Universal Orlando that Disney Parks can't have Avengers, X-Men, or Fantastic Four east of the Mississippi River. That's why Epcot can have a Guardians of the Galaxy ride, they're not Avengers. There's talk that Disney World can build Wakanda at the Animal Kingdom, as long as the Black Panther doesn't show up in costume, though I think they can have someone play King T'Challa. It sucks. Would love to see a Marvel Universe land at Disney World.

4 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

I'm going to avoid breaking this all up, as at times that templated approach can feel like a debate brewing. But I appreciate you sharing so much content.

1) Where did you read it is military standard to remove an eye? Or was that just to add another sentence?

2) There is the possibility of a later motivation for what happened. But when you look at the approach of a movie being able to stand on its own story legs (ignoring any box office results), it came across as a weaker option to explain his eye.

3) If you look at the damage around his eye, it is a larger gash and many additional gashes implying some form of an explosion or distribution of objects that struck his face. Not a cat scratch.

 

Perhaps I spoke in haste about the U.S. Military standard on severe eye trauma (I did write in haste as I was on my way to see SHAZAM! earlier). I just know the military doesn't screw around, An optical injury so severe that he loses all vision and leaves that much scarring, I figure the military wouldn't take the chance of it becoming infected and remove it,  give him a Purple Heart, a  medical discharge, and 100% disability compensation for the rest of his life.

I agree, in the above Winter Soldier image which I did reference in my initial post, the wound isn't as clean a slice as I remember. I may have been referring to other images like below. Either way, I think my argument still holds water, regardless.

I think Kevin Feige and company only give the illusion that they know exactly what they're doing. Sure there's an overall plan, sure there was going to be an eventual battle with Thanos, but the little details I think they make up as they go along. Carol Danvers was originally going to debut in Age of Ultron, after all. Thank goodness that didn't happen.

21 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

"...cheap scenes like how Nick Fury lost his eye were forced into the story and detracted from a great BETTER tale to be told. Like from the Ultimates line Nick Fury losing that eye in a Kuwait battle which fits in well with the original Nick Fury design. Not a silly alien cat scratch leading to his eye being lost." 

About Nick Fury's eye scene in CM, I know many would've preferred Coulson's "Kree burning his eye out" version  or some heroic Purple Heart Gulf War story, even though Fury swerving his car into a bus to take out the Skrull ( and almost losing his eye) was one of the more badass MCU moments I can remember. If you go back and watch Winter Soldier, when Fury reveals his eye to us, that's no Gulf War injury. If the "bad" eye was due to a gun shot or shrapnel, the eye would have been removed per military standards. As we see in WS, the skin around Fury's eye looks unnatural, the eye itself looks like a cataract, and there are claw marks. Not saying the Russo Brothers were setting up for an alien Flerken scratch, but perhaps their intention was for the "accident" to indeed be of alien origin? Fury has a history in the MCU of changing the narrative to suit his purpose, and even admits it in the first Avengers movie, when he admits he put blood not Coulson's on the Captain America cards to show the Avengers for effect. Tales of heroism aside, what if there is more to Fury's alien scratched pupil "than meets the eye?" The Skrulls seemed to know something was up when Goose takes a chunk out of his retina. Flerkens do have the ability to travel inter-dimensionally. What if Goose somehow gifted something to Fury through that extraterrestrial contact? What if it somehow mutated Fury? There's a history in the MCU, and Marvel Comics, of characters that are blind or who wear an eyepatch, of having forms of clairvoyance or all seeing. Look at Odin, who wears a patch, but possesses the all seeing eye, or Heimdall. Is it possible that Goose's scratch gave Fury the ability to sense the future? Perhaps in losing an eye, Fury gained greater insight? I joked about this in an earlier post, but what if that's the case? Throughout the MCU movies, Fury seems to know things others don't. Natasha asks Fury at the end of Ultron if he knew what would happen between her and Banner. Perhaps Fury always knew in each moment of danger that his Avengers team would be enough, and knew he didn't need Carol Danvers, because of this insight? Perhaps this insight I'm theorizing allowed him to know what was happening during Thanos's snap, and knew that, yeah, he needs to call Carol? Perhaps Fury is humanity's version of Odin, all seeing and all knowing in a way. And he's precisely that because of the "gift" given him by Goose? I kind of like that theory.

43 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

So stating someone not calling this a 'good movie' is because they are allowing other influences is your poorly assumed opinion. There is more going on here than it being associated with a female lead or female super-powered being. So if you are implying that with your 'objective' comment, take it someplace else.

In no way am I implying that your opinion of Captain Marvel is informed by its female elements, already had that back and forth with TwoPiece. What I mean is I firmly disagree with anyone saying Captain Marvel, for any variety of reasons, is not a good movie. One doesn't have to like it, perhaps they would have liked a different set of events, or didn't like how the characters turned out, or whatever. I'm saying, comic lore and expectations aside, Captain Marvel was a very tight three act structured mystery road trip movie with an interesting twist on our expectations. There weren't any wasted scenes, and the movie had a strong emotional core as Carol Danvers, in her mystery trip, discovers her lost best friend. If I were teaching a film class on writing, I think you could use this film as an example of good tight storytelling. And it also had a cat, or rather a flerken. Btw, I'd argue that the movie was actually somewhat faithful to the comic book Skrulls. Ever since John Byrne had Galactus destroy their Homeworld years ago, they've been shown in a more sympathetic light except for Secret Invasion, of course. But even Super Skrull is a hero now. Plus, I'd say it's a little boring to keep seeing the lizard-like Skrulls as the main baddies. It just adds to that unfortunate symptom of our society of easily demonizing those that aren't like us. I think the Kree, with their superiority complex, make better bad guys, though I have a feeling Marvel Studios has bigger things in store. After all, Kree are people, too.

41 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Fair point.

Me, I like a strong woman that can stand up for herself. Totally okay with that. Just give her a good story to take those powers for an appropriate ride.

You mean give a her "a story that you prefer," because 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.

1 hour ago, TwoPiece said:

She doesn't overcome Yon-Rogg at the same stage. She doesn't grow as a person and overcome him. She zaps her little power-controller and then beats him with "power". That's not character growth. That's power level growth. And she doesn't earn it. It's artificially staged power growth.

Standing up from crashing a go cart is not character growth. Being harassed is not character growth. The growth that she maybe accrued happened off-screen, and that does nothing to actually show us character growth. We now have to assume, or be told, such.

She literally overcame nothing but a plot device. She didn't grow pre-"Intelligence Control", nor post-"Intelligence Control". Nothing that we were shown.

Edit: Also, you want to use Strange as a measuring stick? They tell the audience, and show us, that he has a photographic memory. He uses his astral form to study over months. Marvel also told us that he grew over the seemingly large amount of "time" he was in the Dark Dimension. We literally watch him grow from a scientist that doesn't believe s^&* into the Master of the Mystic Arts. There's a very obvious character arc to follow in that movie (a formula similar to Iron Man that they;ve regurgitated for most of their origin films).

Yeah, and Carol Danvers had been using her photon blasters for six years as a Kree stealth warrior, trained to fight with the Kree's greatest warriors, and was a badass Air Force pilot before she could fly on her own. So before she powers up, she was already at an advantage, kind of like Steven Strange and his photographic memory. And is there really an arc in Steven Strange's conversion from being a skeptical d****bag to belief in the mystic arts? The Ancient One literally takes him on a one minute trip through fantasyland and he comes back from it saying "teach me." That's not much of an arc, dude. Look man, not every MCU origin movie has to be about learning your powers. Black Panther wasn't about T'Challa learning his powers as much as it was about learning to be a better ruler and changing a legacy of ruling the wrong way, a direct consequence being the abandonment of a child who was family in a strange land. Thor wasn't about learning new powers but learning the meaning of selflessness and humility. Again, when we meet Carol Danvers, she's been a Kree Star Force warrior for six years, is a master blaster, and we know she's a great pilot. Her story is by trying to stop the Skrulls, she inadvertently pieces  back together missing parts of her life, and in doing so, learns the way the universe actually works and finds this great hidden power within her. And if you don't see the character arc there, I can't help you. But I don't think you want to be helped. Btw, my reference to Carol crashing her go-cart as a kid was to show that she hasn't been this perfect human being "Mary Sue" or whatever all her life like you haters keep saying she is.

22 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

How is Carol a "mess of a human being"? She's literally bad at nothing. She struggles with nothing. Memory loss obviously isn't a hurdle if she thrived as a Kree for 6 years under the same condition. Once her full power is unleashed she's seemingly unstoppable. She doesn't struggle for a millisecond with "adapting" to her amount of power.

 

Being her mentor, Yonn-Rogg kicks Carol's butt twice in hand to hand, first while training, and second, on Mar Vell's ship. She loses her target twice, first with So Larr the spy, then the Skrull on the train. In the mind scrubbing sequence on the Skrull ship, we see her crash her go-cart trying to go further and faster, we see her being put down by her fellow Air Force mates as she's a woman in a time when women weren't accepted in certain roles in the military. We see her awkwardness in several scenes like when she crash lands on Earth, wears a rubber suit in public, when Fury refers to her looking like "someone's disaffected niece" with the flannel. We see her fighting for the wrong side, the oppressors. Even after she powers up and goes Binary, she learns the powers as she goes. She doesn't realize she can fly until she starts falling into the canyon and has to reach inside to find that power. While flying, she gets bounced around a few times as she learns "new wings." And yes, she's pretty powerful at the end and has a decent grasp of those powers fairly quickly, but you know who you can also say that about in their origin movie? Doctor Strange. He literally defeats Dormammu while still a trainee at the Hogwarts school. And in the first Iron Man movie, Tony Stark is flying around in that Iron Man suit like he's been doing it for three movies. And poor dorky Steve Rogers turned into quite the martial artist action hero after his super soldier serum injection. Muscles are one thing, but hand to hand combat and being able to handle a flying vibranium shield with so little training? Seems like an MCU thing, doesn't it?

4 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

When I speak of girl power in Captain Marvel, I'm not referring to Carol Danvers' photon blasters just like "man power" wouldn't refer to Doctor Strange's ability to wield sorcery. When I say "girl power," I'm talking about the story elements which the filmmakers used to tell their tale such as the 90's girl band soundtrack, the sisterhood friendship between Carol and Maria, allowing Carol Danvers to be a mess as a human being(a characteristic reserved for men in lesser movies), things you might find in any intelligent movie with a woman at its center. 

And yes, Captain Marvel is an intelligent movie. Maybe that's why you don't get it, TwoPiece?

4 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

Are you?

Captain Marvel is literally "a girl with powers". You specifically said, "girl power". Is English your first language?

When I speak of girl power in Captain Marvel, I'm not referring to Carol Danvers' photon blasters just like "man power" wouldn't refer to Doctor Strange's ability to wield sorcery. When I say "girl power," I'm talking about the story elements which the filmmakers used to tell their tale such as the 90's girl band soundtrack, the sisterhood friendship between Carol and Maria, allowing Carol Danvers to be a mess as a human being(a characteristic reserved for men in lesser movies), things you might find in any intelligent movie with a woman at its center. 

5 minutes ago, ianh said:

It doesn't matter it it is at best a mediocre movie. You must respect the wamen and say you loved it. Haters. 

 

Oh boy, troll alert! The d****ebag term "wamen" has now entered the arena.

4 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

It's the same as Tony Stark's sexism harming the likability of his character, early on.

Equality:

Tony Stark's sexism hurt his character.

Carol Danvers' "girl power" hurts her character.

Luckily, though, Iron Man wasn't chock-full of sexism.

Captain Marvel was a mediocre movie, only in-part, because of the feminist elitism. The movie suffers from far more problems than the singular argument you're trying to make. You've simply focused on 1 thing that you think you can argue. I suppose that means you're concede all of the other concerns. A "7/10" is mediocre.

I think you're confusing "girl power" with "a girl with powers." Seems like you're having trouble with the latter.

 I want one

The God of Hammers has spoken

6 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

Hawkeye and Black Widow were always weak, but they have their place. 

To dismiss Black Widow and Hawkeye from the Avengers is like dismissing Black Canary or Green Arrow from the JLA. I wouldnt so lightly underestimate the effectiveness of intelligence or a well placed trick arrow.

35 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

This x 1000.

Lot of Monday-morning quarterbacking in this thread trying to discount Captain Marvel under the guise of "at this point ANY MCU film" inevitability.

But before it came out, folks here on these boards were assuming the film would do just Doctor Strange numbers -- primarily because she's a C-list (at best) comic character.

There's more to this movie's popularity than its just being a lead-in to Endgame.

For its to have so far outperformed Ragnarok, Homecoming, Winter Soldier, Guardians of the Galaxy and more indicates that its actually resonating with audiences and earning repeat viewings.

Heck...it's even doing better than Venom!   

I’ve seen Captain Marvel five times myself ( yes, I have a life), which must account for these inflated numbers.

4 hours ago, Drummy said:

Agree with that -- it's a solid, fun movie but its WW total definitely plays into its role in the MCU.  Their brand is so strong that, as they say, 'all boats rise with the tide'.  

And Endgame may be poised to hit close to $300m opening weekend...unbelievable.

Ha ha...try a billion opening weekend, Dummy.

5 hours ago, fastballspecial said:

I disagree with Sersi choice. She is way too old more like Cybele Zuras's wife. 

They need an actress in her 20s or early 30s to carry Eternals along with a males around the same age.
Especially if the next phase is going to center around the Eternals. Don't get me wrong I love
Angelina and have for years, but she is too old for that part unless they make it a one film only.
Look at the Avengers same formula.

Sersi is 10,000 years old. Angelina Jolie is 43 and looked great in Maleficent. With makeup and Marvel’s deaging process, I think she’d be just fine. For me, Sersi, being someone who has shaped Earth’s history (she’s the same sorceress Circe who turned Odysseus’s men into pigs from Greek mythology), needs to be played by an actress with history, influence, and name recognition. Jolie fits that bill and has the looks for it as well ( she just spoke at the United Nations for Christ sake!). To have Sersi played by an unknown or young actress with little experience would take away from the needed charisma that the character needs. Angelina brings that charisma. I hope she is cast as Sersi.

Here’s mine. I always see Stan’s signature in the moon so I had him sign it somewhere a little less noticeable to be different. It gets a little lost in the detail but I like it.

40 minutes ago, valiantman said:

Surely Ragnarok should be considered a Thor/Hulk movie, and not Thor solo. 

Doctor Strange was in Ragnarok, too. With Valkyrie in the mix, if they'd thrown in Namor, it would've practically been an OG Defenders movie.

6 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

You think I'm a troll? Why? Because I suggest that you should be ashamed for posting a lame pun?

"Troll" used to mean something. This is a prime example of why it no longer does (and hasn't for at least a decade).

No, fer ur apparent hate of Captain Marvel. I think as a society we’ve agreed that anybody who hates the good Captain is a troll. Plus, anybody who dismisses the term “troll” is in all probability a troll. It’s simple physics.

8 minutes ago, TwoPiece said:

fer wut

fer being a troll, obviously