THE MARVELS starring Brie Larson, Iman Vellani and Teyonna Parris (2023) 9 9

[Nick Furious]

On 11/8/2023 at 10:01 PM, VintageComics said:

The perfect counterpoint is Tony Stark. 

Marvel literally built a new universe around Stark Industries because they didn't have any other way to have a proper Superteam, having sold off FF and X-men.

So they slowly built up an entire universe, one character at a time and formed a believable, powerful, drama filled Superteam from scratch and it not only worked, it's one of the greatest story arcs in movie history. 

Fast forward to Captain Marvel and it feels like they rushed something out to fill a hole and it isn't working. In fact, it's very similar to what DC did in trying to keep up with Marvel. They literally rushed their projects and blew it.

It took Tony Stark a decade to get there as opposed to just a movie or two for CM.

 

That's a great point, and add in that Stark/Iron Man was already an A-list character in the Marvel Universe.  Maybe not a Spider-man or X-men, but certainly an A minus at minimum.  Strangely, I'm one of the few people here who actually really enjoyed the first Captain Marvel movie.  I thought it was well-written, well-acted and a lot of fun to watch.  It was a fairly complex movie with a lot of development of Skrulls, Nick Fury, CM memory holes, etc.  I really liked the way it navigated the Skrulls from antagonists to sympathetic characters in the MCU while transitioning the Kree from good guys to antagonists.  

[paqart]

On 11/8/2023 at 10:47 PM, Nick Furious said:

I think it could have something to do with the MCU writer's arbitrary decision to just insert Captain Marvel at the top of the totem pole in the MCU.  Towards the end of the MCU this C-list character shows up and is immediately crowned the "Superman" of the MCU.  More powerful than all the other characters, both A and B list.  The seeming predictability of the "socially conscious" decision to have the most powerful character be a woman may play into the allergic reaction, but I don't think it's the over-arching cause that some would like to believe it is.  Even if CM were a man, I think many longtime MCU fans would be disgruntled at this longtime back-bench character being appointed top-of-the-heap upon arrival.    

When I was a kid, my favorite two characters were Vision and Captain Marvel, in that order. By "Captain Marvel," I mean Mar-Vell, not Ms. Marvel (Carol Danvers). I liked his story a lot and was very disappointed to see him replaced by Ms. Marvel, and then again by the Annette Bening version of Mar-Vell. If done well, I may have forgiven the changes, but as it is, they didn't improve anything. Gender-swapping the characters and altering their back story was done to accommodate the desire to eliminate yet another male lead, not to improve the story or movie.

Another point: this goes beyond gender swapping. If you look at Disney's princess movies, you see plenty of female leads. In fact, the lead character in almost every Disney animated feature is female: Belle, Cinderella, Snow White, Ariel, Jasmine, and on and on. There is absolutely no lack of big parts for female characters at Disney. This is also true of many of their live action films. What makes the Marvel/Disney female characters different is that they exist in what Disney has made into an effectively female-controlled universe, where the strong women take over the traditional male roles. So, rather than expanding the range of female characters, they are reducing the range of male characters while doing nothing about their already disproportionate female-led films.

[VintageComics]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:18 PM, Nick Furious said:

That's a great point, and add in that Stark/Iron Man was already an A-list character in the Marvel Universe. 

I actually don't know if I would have considered Iron Man an A-list character in 2008. 

I think Marvel was trying to get him there pre 2008 in anticipation of the growing cinematic universe by strategically building support for their MCU characters through comic book storylines, but I grew up reading Iron Man in the 70's and 80's and I don't think ANYONE would've called him an A-lister back then. 

 

But just slow down for a second and think about how much effort and time Marvel put into building this cinematic universe around Stark. 

The Ultimates came out in 2002.

That story arc was the cornerstone of the MCU. Why the heck else would we have had a Nick Fury played by Samuel Jackson IN THE COMIC BOOKS except that by 2002 Marvel had already decided they were going to build an MCU...and they'd already been planning it for a few years before that.  

They started preparing the audience by salting the mine in the comics, then 6 years after The Ultimates they came out with 1 lone Iron Man movie. After that we had Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America - The First Avenger - still building Iron Man's legacy, and then finally it all culminated into Avengers in 2012. 

So what you had was a long term, 10+ year project spanning 2002 - 2012. Add in that they probably started planning well before 2002 and you probably have 12+ years of planning to create the Avengers franchise. 

 

It's actually the same when a city builds a new sports arena. The day you see them breaking ground, this is not even the DECADE they decided this was going to happen. In civil planning this started 20 years ago sometimes. It's usually a decade or two from the inception of the idea to the shovel breaking ground because they have to account for EVERYTHING from road / plumbing / sewer infrastructure to population change to traffic flow and even things a small as waste removal.

It's really that way for every every industry whether it's entertainment, or large current events in the news or building a billion dollar corporation. It just looks like it happened overnight because you and I weren't privy to the discussion going on in the background. 

But the discussion in the background is where the real action happens. Once the groundbreaking happens, it's already been a done deal for years.

Ironically, and to prove my point CGC took over 20 years before it was taken over as a billion dollar company. 

[VintageComics]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:31 PM, paqart said:

When I was a kid, my favorite two characters were Vision and Captain Marvel, in that order. By "Captain Marvel," I mean Mar-Vell, 

I thought I'd like CM but could NEVER get into Mar-Vell for some reason. I even tried Starlin's arc because I was a massive Starlin fan from his Warlock stuff, but it just didn't do it for me. I was never into the cosmic stuff and I considered Warlock to me more magic than cosmic, which is probably why the original Captain Marvel (Shazam) appealed to me so much.

On 11/8/2023 at 11:31 PM, paqart said:

Another point: this goes beyond gender swapping. If you look at Disney's princess movies, you see plenty of female leads. In fact, the lead character in almost every Disney animated feature is female: Belle, Cinderella, Snow White, Ariel, Jasmine, and on and on.

What you're missing in this observation is that Disney is culturally trying to break the traditional feminine stereotype that those roles previously upheld, and unfortunately I know a LOT of women who disagree with that new philosophy.

In fact, I would say that the overwhelming majority of women I've personally known (including my daughters) and my exes or women I've dated have clearly stated to me that they LOVE being traditional women and these newer movies are unrelatable to them in many ways. I would say in my experience maybe 1 or 2 in 10 women prefer being in a non-traditional relationship. Of course, take that for what it is. It's just anecdotal but across the board that has been my experience. 

Traditional in the sense that each have their separate roles in a relationship, and yet every woman I know is also extremely strong, independent and intelligent (in fact, I think my daughters are smarter than most men )

And so in trying to reinvent women's roles I believe they are alienating the very segment of society that they originally built their success on.

I think Disney are doing what they THINK the public wants but the public is speaking out in the loudest way possible: with their wallets.

People can spin it any way they want, but there is no more definite indicator than that. The proof is in the pudding. 

 

[paqart]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:48 PM, VintageComics said:

 

But the discussion in the background is where the real action happens. Once the groundbreaking happens, it's already been a done deal for years.

Ironically, and to prove my point CGC took over 20 years before it was taken over as a billion dollar company. 

The scary thing about this is that it implies that all the swapping was planned long before it happened. The only reason I don't buy that part of the argument is that it was a Disney decision made decades ago, not a Marvel decision. When Marvel was bought, they were made to conform. Therefore, it was a sudden change for Marvel, but not Disney.

[VintageComics]

On 11/9/2023 at 12:08 AM, paqart said:

The scary thing about this is that it implies that all the swapping was planned long before it happened. The only reason I don't buy that part of the argument is that it was a Disney decision made decades ago, not a Marvel decision. When Marvel was bought, they were made to conform. Therefore, it was a sudden change for Marvel, but not Disney.

Hammer meet nail. 

After reading what Nick Furious wrote, that's what I concluded as well but was waiting for others to get there without my spelling it out. 

I believe this is exactly what happened. 

As people we tend to think small, but you don't run a company with a market cap the size of a small country's GDP (what is it? $150 Billion?) by thinking small. 

[Cat]

On 11/9/2023 at 2:16 PM, paqart said:

When Disney all but screams "we hate men, we revel in what churchgoers consider immoral lifestyles, and you cannot trust your children to us" I start looking at Disney the same way I look at Death Water.

This statement is so wrong on so many levels. Stop inserting so much political talk into your comments, and thinking you're so clever you're getting away with it. You're not, and yes we're noticing. 

Trans lives matter. 

[paqart]

On 11/9/2023 at 12:07 AM, VintageComics said:

I thought I'd like CM but could NEVER get into Mar-Vell for some reason. I even tried Starlin's arc because I was a massive Starlin fan from his Warlock stuff, but it just didn't do it for me. I was never into the cosmic stuff and I considered Warlock to me more magic than cosmic, which is probably why the original Captain Marvel (Shazam) appealed to me so much.

What you're missing in this observation is that Disney is culturally trying to break the traditional feminine stereotype that those roles previously upheld, and unfortunately I know a LOT of women who disagree with that new philosophy.

In fact, I would say that the overwhelming majority of women I've personally known (including my daughters) and my exes or women I've dated have clearly stated to me that they LOVE being traditional women and these newer movies are unrelatable to them in many ways. I would say in my experience maybe 1 or 2 in 10 women prefer being in a non-traditional relationship. Of course, take that for what it is. It's just anecdotal but across the board that has been my experience. 

Traditional in the sense that each have their separate roles in a relationship, and yet every woman I know is also extremely strong, independent and intelligent (in fact, I think my daughters are smarter than most men )

And so in trying to reinvent women's roles I believe they are alienating the very segment of society that they originally built their success on.

I think Disney are doing what they THINK the public wants but the public is speaking out in the loudest way possible: with their wallets.

People can spin it any way they want, but there is no more definite indicator than that. The proof is in the pudding. 

 

I agree with you on this, and will pile on a bit. My wife went to Columbia University, where, as she tells it, she was encouraged to think of having a career in big business, and that anything less was beneath her. Domestic duties were off the charts bad, according to her teachers. However, the emphasis on ambition, jobs, and antagonism to domestic life was very depressing for her. She wanted to get married and have kids. She liked all the things she was supposed to hate, and found all the things she was supposed to like, empty, unfulfilling, and threatening. To answer Buzzetta's impertinent remark, I only asked one woman out for a date in my life. We married, and have remained married to this day, almost 40 years after we met. 

On a side note, my wife is an excellent cartoonist. She was courted by King Features and United Media back in the late eighties, early nineties, all the way through the early 2000's, now that I think of it. The sticking point was that her main character was a stay at home mom who liked being a stay at home mom. She had no interest in a career, and loved her husband. Not only that, she respected him. The editors she was in talks with kept urging her to make her a working mother and to have "conflict" with her husband. My wife didn't like that, so she didn't do it. At one point, King Features suggested a contract where she did the art, the strip was hers, but it would be written by another cartoonist (who had a successful strip). My wife and I knew the other cartoonist and liked him, but he wanted to change the whole thing into a bunch of race and gender-oriented gags. My wife didn't like that either, so she never got syndicated. Not for lack of ability, but lack of conformity.

[paperheart]

IBTL2

[paqart]

On 11/9/2023 at 12:18 AM, Cat said:

This statement is so wrong on so many levels. Stop inserting so much political talk into your comments, and thinking you're so clever you're getting away with it. You're not, and yes we're noticing. 

Trans lives matter. 

That's the way to end a conversation without persuading anyone of anything beyond your willingness to brute force the extinction of diversity in thought.

[VintageComics]

On 11/9/2023 at 12:18 AM, Cat said:

This statement is so wrong on so many levels. Stop inserting so much political talk into your comments, and thinking you're so clever you're getting away with it. You're not, and yes we're noticing. 

Trans lives matter. 

What the HECK are you talking about?

Nobody is talking about ANY of those things. We're simply speaking from personal experience. Do you have any to share? 

Edited November 9, 2023 by VintageComics

[VintageComics]

On 11/9/2023 at 12:18 AM, paqart said:

I agree with you on this, and will pile on a bit. My wife went to Columbia University, where, as she tells it, she was encouraged to think of having a career in big business, and that anything less was beneath her. Domestic duties were off the charts bad, according to her teachers. However, the emphasis on ambition, jobs, and antagonism to domestic life was very depressing for her. She wanted to get married and have kids. She liked all the things she was supposed to hate, and found all the things she was supposed to like, empty, unfulfilling, and threatening. To answer Buzzetta's impertinent remark, I only asked one woman out for a date in my life. We married, and have remained married to this day, almost 40 years after we met. 

On a side note, my wife is an excellent cartoonist. She was courted by King Features and United Media back in the late eighties, early nineties, all the way through the early 2000's, now that I think of it. The sticking point was that her main character was a stay at home mom who liked being a stay at home mom. She had no interest in a career, and loved her husband. Not only that, she respected him. The editors she was in talks with kept urging her to make her a working mother and to have "conflict" with her husband. My wife didn't like that, so she didn't do it. At one point, King Features suggested a contract where she did the art, the strip was hers, but it would be written by another cartoonist (who had a successful strip). My wife and I knew the other cartoonist and liked him, but he wanted to change the whole thing into a bunch of race and gender-oriented gags. My wife didn't like that either, so she never got syndicated. Not for lack of ability, but lack of conformity.

Interestingly enough, my only two relationships (13 and 11 years) were completely different in regards to the workforce but wholly identical in their personal relationship roles. 

One wanted to be a homemaker their entire life and ended up doing so.

The other wanted to be a corporate professional their entire life and was never content to just remain a homemaker. They managed 10 figure accounts and could do her job like it was a part of her DNA, meaning she was better than anyone in her field. 

And yet, despite being extremely different outwardly in the workforce, both considered themselves traditional outside of the workforce. 

[godzilla43]

So after this terrible film all the characters live in a parallel universe where Captain Marvel and Kang the conqueror looks different and there is X-men and FF. I am looking for MCU fans to write that I already saw the end credits once and I am going next week to see the end credits second time...

[VintageComics]

On 11/9/2023 at 12:57 AM, godzilla43 said:

So after this terrible film all the characters live in a parallel universe where Captain Marvel and Kang the conqueror 

DUDE! You gotta put spoilers in SPOILERS!

Spoiler

Like this! 

 

[godzilla43]

Mostly that is just something I made up. So who knows.

[mr_highgrade]

On 11/8/2023 at 11:48 PM, VintageComics said:

I actually don't know if I would have considered Iron Man an A-list character in 2008. 

I think Marvel was trying to get him there pre 2008 in anticipation of the growing cinematic universe by strategically building support for their MCU characters through comic book storylines, but I grew up reading Iron Man in the 70's and 80's and I don't think ANYONE would've called him an A-lister back then. 

 

But just slow down for a second and think about how much effort and time Marvel put into building this cinematic universe around Stark. 

The Ultimates came out in 2002.

That story arc was the cornerstone of the MCU. Why the heck else would we have had a Nick Fury played by Samuel Jackson IN THE COMIC BOOKS except that by 2002 Marvel had already decided they were going to build an MCU...and they'd already been planning it for a few years before that.  

They started preparing the audience by salting the mine in the comics, then 6 years after The Ultimates they came out with 1 lone Iron Man movie. After that we had Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America - The First Avenger - still building Iron Man's legacy, and then finally it all culminated into Avengers in 2012. 

So what you had was a long term, 10+ year project spanning 2002 - 2012. Add in that they probably started planning well before 2002 and you probably have 12+ years of planning to create the Avengers franchise. 

 

It's actually the same when a city builds a new sports arena. The day you see them breaking ground, this is not even the DECADE they decided this was going to happen. In civil planning this started 20 years ago sometimes. It's usually a decade or two from the inception of the idea to the shovel breaking ground because they have to account for EVERYTHING from road / plumbing / sewer infrastructure to population change to traffic flow and even things a small as waste removal.

It's really that way for every every industry whether it's entertainment, or large current events in the news or building a billion dollar corporation. It just looks like it happened overnight because you and I weren't privy to the discussion going on in the background. 

But the discussion in the background is where the real action happens. Once the groundbreaking happens, it's already been a done deal for years.

Ironically, and to prove my point CGC took over 20 years before it was taken over as a billion dollar company. 

I also don't think Iron man was a A-lister character back in those days. 

[VintageComics]

On 11/9/2023 at 1:20 AM, mr_highgrade said:

I also don't think Iron man was a A-lister character back in those days. 

I'm not very well versed in moderns but I did read the Ultimates 20 years ago, and I think it's safe to say that Ultimates propelled (or was partly responsible in propelling) Iron Man into being the A-lister he is today.

I don't think he was before that, was he?

[mr_highgrade]

On 11/9/2023 at 1:22 AM, VintageComics said:

I'm not very well versed in moderns but I did read the Ultimates 20 years ago, and I think it's safe to say that Ultimates propelled (or was partly responsible in propelling) Iron Man into being the A-lister he is today.

I don't think he was before that, was he?

In my humbled opinion, No. I always considered him a B-lister at best. Today, he's a rock star. 

[godzilla43]

Iron Man became A-listener because of those first two movies. Iron Man appearing on Ultimates or in Civil War did not do anything for his popularity and if Marvel would have had Spider-man or X-men then one those would have been the first MCU film.

Edited November 9, 2023 by godzilla43

[N7 M31]

I would like to reply to some of paqart's comments on this thread....But i thought better of it and decided that wouldn't be good.