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

[theCapraAegagrus]

The Incredible Hulk (2008) is worse than Captain Marvel. Duh.

The video is comparing two military personalities who get superpowers.

No, they cannot "be their own thing", because they're part of a bigger universe. A connected one. Context matters. GotG Vol. 2 is a good comedy. It is a god-awful MCU movie.

[media_junkie]

19 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

So why just the Captain America vs Captain Marvel comparison? Does the video author compare Captain America to other MCU movies to show how they pale in comparison? Where's the Cap America vs Incredible Hulk comparison? Is he going to size up Cap against Ant-Man's movie? Dr. Strange?

Well, back on page 11 you said that Captain Marvel was taking over the role of Captain America going forward in these films, so why shouldn't the two be compared against each other?  Is the Hulk taking over the role of Captain America?  No, so no comparison.  Is Ant-Man taking over the role of Captain America?  Dr. Strange?  

By your very own statement Captain Marvel and Captain America have to be compared because you are claiming she is taking over his role.  It is just like back in the day when "New Coke" took over the role "Old Coke" .  We all know how that turned out and "New Coke" was quickly shelved.

[@therealsilvermane]

25 minutes ago, media_junkie said:

Well, back on page 11 you said that Captain Marvel was taking over the role of Captain America going forward in these films, so why shouldn't the two be compared against each other?  Is the Hulk taking over the role of Captain America?  No, so no comparison.  Is Ant-Man taking over the role of Captain America?  Dr. Strange?  

By your very own statement Captain Marvel and Captain America have to be compared because you are claiming she is taking over his role.  It is just like back in the day when "New Coke" took over the role "Old Coke" .  We all know how that turned out and "New Coke" was quickly shelved.

Yes, my theory is that Carol Danvers is taking the leadership role of the Avengers from Steve Rogers. But I could be wrong. For sure, Carol will take a central role going forward, but maybe Sam Wilson will be the Avengers' leader. Who knows? But they're a team, and ideally they work as a team, each offering something the other doesn't. If one wants to compare the characters and powers of Carol vs Steve, fine, but I don't need to know how much better one person is over the other. They're all fine, how about that? My point was why compare the movies and why single out Captain Marvel (in the YouTube video)? It serves no real purpose other than to argue that all superhero movies should have the same formula.

Now, if we're to compare Captain Marvel against any other MCU film, it's actually closer to Thor. Both movies involve an extra-terrestrial super-powered being marooned on Earth. Both Thor and Carol have a goal as a result. For Thor, it's to get off Earth. For Carol, it's to find the enemy Skrulls somewhere on the planet. Both make friends along the way and both are directed towards a "power source" which will power them up for their movie's big battle. But they're not exactly the same, and I don't need them to be the same. I don't need one movie to tell the same story better over the other. They're both different stories within the MCU with different ways of storytelling and I find that much more interesting then every MCU movie being some kind of carbon copy of the other.

Edited July 29, 2020 by @therealsilvermane

[theCapraAegagrus]

3 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Yes, my theory is that Carol Danvers is taking the leadership role of the Avengers from Steve Rogers. But I could be wrong. For sure, Carol will take a central role going forward, but maybe Sam Wilson will be the Avengers' leader. Who knows? But they're a team, and ideally they work as a team, each offering something the other doesn't. If one wants to compare the characters and powers of Carol vs Steve, fine, but I don't need to know how much better one person is over the other. They're all fine, how about that? My point was why compare the movies and why single out Captain Marvel (in the YouTube video)? It serves no real purpose other than to argue that all superhero movies should have the same formula.

Now, if we're to compare Captain Marvel against any other MCU film, it's actually closer to Thor. Both movies involve an extra-terrestrial super-powered being marooned on Earth. Both Thor and Carol have a goal as a result. For Thor, it's to get off Earth. For Carol, it's to find the enemy Skrulls somewhere on the planet. Both make friends along the way and both are directed towards a "power source" which will power them up for their movie's big battle. But they're not exactly the same, and I don't need them to be the same. I don't need one movie to tell the same story better over the other. They're both different stories within the MCU with different ways of storytelling and I find that much more interesting then every MCU movie being some kind of carbon copy of the other.

This is very far from "for sure". The only guarantees in life are death and taxes.

Why are you singling out Captain Marvel as some "for sure...central role"? The purpose of the video is to show those blinded by faith that there are compelling reasons to avoiding using her current character as some franchise linchpin.

[@therealsilvermane]

19 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

This is very far from "for sure". The only guarantees in life are death and taxes.

Why are you singling out Captain Marvel as some "for sure...central role"? The purpose of the video is to show those blinded by faith that there are compelling reasons to avoiding using her current character as some franchise linchpin.

I'm sure Carol Danvers will have a central role going forward because: 1. Kevin Feige said she will, 2. You're seeing her take a bigger role storywise and visually in the comics and covers that show all the heroes, 3. and she has the Studios' name in her title. It would be very bad use of intellectual property if Marvel Studios doesn't put front and center the character who has the same name as the Studio. Stan Lee had the right idea when Marvel "stole" the Captain Marvel name from DC in 1968, but too bad the Bullpen didn't know what to really do with the character. Maybe now, Kevin Feige, arguably the most important Marvel creator since Stan Lee, knows what to do with the character. And part of that is building a better heroine.

Edited July 29, 2020 by @therealsilvermane

[theCapraAegagrus]

6 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

I'm sure Carol Danvers will have a central role going forward because: 1. Kevin Feige said she will, 2. You're seeing her take a bigger role storywise and visually in the comics and covers that show all the heroes, 3. and she has the Studios' name in her title. It would be very bad use of intellectual property if Marvel Studios doesn't put front and center the character who has the same name as the Studio. Stan Lee had the right idea when Marvel "stole" the Captain Marvel name from DC in 1968, but too bad the Bullpen didn't know what to really do with the character. Maybe now, Kevin Feige, arguably the most important Marvel creator since Stan Lee, knows what to do with the character. And part of that is building a better heroine.

Kevin Feige has said a lot of stuff that has amounted to nothing, so you can't "be sure".

The comics have close-to-nothing to do with the MCU, but, if you wanna go there... Her character is so unpopular that the title has had to be rebooted many times.

at the bold.

[Gatsby77]

24 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

This is very far from "for sure". The only guarantees in life are death and taxes.

Why are you singling out Captain Marvel as some "for sure...central role"? The purpose of the video is to show those blinded by faith that there are compelling reasons to avoiding using her current character as some franchise linchpin.

Umm...maybe because Disney announced as such?

There’s rampant speculation since by fanboys that no - it’s *got* to be Spider-Man, or Black Panther, or Falcon, since.

But nothings been confirmed - and given the popular box office and critical response to Carol’s film, why should it be anything different?

 

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

1 minute ago, Gatsby77 said:

Umm...maybe because Disney announced as such?

There’s rampant speculation since by fanboys that no - it’s *got* to be Spider-Man, or Black Panther, or Falcon, since.

But nothings been confirmed - and given the popular box office and critical response to Carol’s film, why should it be anything different?

We probably shouldn't be playing the irony game. Captain Marvel was "announced" to be important prior to her movie - to drive sales. Things have certainly changed.

The "critical response" from the MCU's primary financial resource (the fans) isn't favorable to determine her as a franchise linchpin.

[Gatsby77]

19 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

We probably shouldn't be playing the irony game. Captain Marvel was "announced" to be important prior to her movie - to drive sales. Things have certainly changed.

The "critical response" from the MCU's primary financial resource (the fans) isn't favorable to determine her as a franchise linchpin.

Really?

$1.1 bn. worldwide prove you wrong.

For instance, Ant-Man and the Wasp's storyline arguably had as much an influence on Endgame's as Captain Marvel's did (i.e., the whole - going back in time quantum-verse bit), but it did half a billion dollars worse.

Half a billion. Worse. That takes skill. 

[theCapraAegagrus]

Just now, Gatsby77 said:

Really?

$1.1 bn. worldwide prove you wrong.

For instance, Ant-Man and the Wasp's storyline arguably had as much an influence on Endgame's as Captain Marvel's did (i.e., the whole - going back in time quantum-verse bit), but it did half a billion dollars worse.

Half a billion. Worse. That takes skill. 

Doesn't touch that without piggybacking on Infinity War.

Neither Ant-Man nor The Wasp were paged by Nick Fury at the end of an Avengers film after the heroes lost.

None of this is news.

[Gatsby77]

25 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

The "critical response" from the MCU's primary financial resource (the fans) isn't favorable to determine her as a franchise linchpin.

Also - since when does Marvel care about the comic book fans?

I wasn't aware Captain Marvel *had* any comic book fans prior to the post-credits stinger in Endgame.

As I've said, I grew up with knowledge of the 1970s Captain Marvel and the Monica Rambeau character - who was active in West Coast Avengers when I was reading them as a kid.

But no comic book fans cared about Carol Danvers before the movie.

Just like no comic book fans cared about Guardians of the Galaxy before the movie. (I mean, I'm old enough to have read 1-10 of the 1990 series off the shelf when they were new, but in 2013? Nobody cared.)

That's the point.

Comics fans' opinions don't matter -- movie-goers do. They drive the revenue.

You know what film catered to comic book fans (and no one else)?

Watchmen.

And it was spectacular.

And it bombed. Because only comic fans went to see it.

98% of those who went to see Captain Marvel had never read a comic appearance of hers -- I'd wager 85% of them *still* haven't.

Doesn't matter. She's here to stay.

[theCapraAegagrus]

Just now, Gatsby77 said:

Also - since when does Marvel care about the comic book fans?

I wasn't aware Captain Marvel *had* any comic book fans prior to the post-credits stinger in Endgame.

As I've said, I grew up with knowledge of the 1970s Captain Marvel and the Monica Rambeau character - who was active in West Coast Avengers when I was reading them as a kid.

But no comic book fans cared about Carol Danvers before the movie.

Just like no comic book fans cared about Guardians of the Galaxy before the movie. (I mean, I'm old enough to have read 1-10 of the 1990 series off the shelf when they were new, but in 2013? Nobody cared.)

That's the point.

Comics fans' opinions don't matter -- movie-goers do. They drive the revenue.

You know what film catered to comic book fans (and no one else)?

Watchmen.

And it was spectacular.

And it bombed. Because only comic fans went to see it.

98% of those who went to see Captain Marvel had never read a comic appearance of hers -- I'd wager 85% of them *still* haven't.

Doesn't matter. She's here to stay.

By "the fans", the most logical inference you could've made is that I was referring to those who watch the MCU. Not "comic book fans".

Captain Marvel's "reviews" are mediocre at best. That's not linchpin territory. Public image does matter, too, when it comes to faces of franchises.

[@therealsilvermane]

1 minute ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

Doesn't touch that without piggybacking on Infinity War.

Neither Ant-Man nor The Wasp were paged by Nick Fury at the end of an Avengers film after the heroes lost.

None of this is news.

Never mind that Marvel Studios and Disney marketed the heck out of Captain Marvel for like five months. Never mind that Captain Marvel got tons of free publicity when she became a political-cultural stormbringer causing Rotten Tomatoes to change the way they aggragated user reviews. Never mind that she was the MCU's first solo female led hero (which is pretty big). Never mind people like me who saw it 7 or 8 times in the movie theater because it was so entertaining to us. And oh yeah, people lined up to see who the savior of the Avengers was, because yes, she was generally unknown to the non-comic book reading public before the movie. And oh yeah, it's a major Marvel Studios movie that's not about a guy who rides on ants. The Marvel Studios label itself is the franchise linchpin. The result? Captain Marvel won and continues to make news and attract attention. Captain Marvel 2 should clear a billion again easily.

[theCapraAegagrus]

Just now, @therealsilvermane said:

Never mind that Marvel Studios and Disney marketed the heck out of Captain Marvel for like five months. Never mind that Captain Marvel got tons of free publicity when she became a political-cultural stormbringer causing Rotten Tomatoes to change the way they aggragated user reviews. Never mind that she was the MCU's first solo female led hero (which is pretty big). Never mind people like me who saw it 7 or 8 times in the movie theater because it was so entertaining to us. And oh yeah, people lined up to see who the savior of the Avengers was, because yes, she was generally unknown to the non-comic book reading public before the movie. And oh yeah, it's a major Marvel Studios movie that's not about a guy who rides on ants. The Marvel Studios label itself is the franchise linchpin. The result? Captain Marvel won and continues to make news and attract attention. Captain Marvel 2 should clear a billion again easily.

You have my condolences.

[@therealsilvermane]

6 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

Also - since when does Marvel care about the comic book fans?

I wasn't aware Captain Marvel *had* any comic book fans prior to the post-credits stinger in Endgame.

As I've said, I grew up with knowledge of the 1970s Captain Marvel and the Monica Rambeau character - who was active in West Coast Avengers when I was reading them as a kid.

But no comic book fans cared about Carol Danvers before the movie.

Just like no comic book fans cared about Guardians of the Galaxy before the movie. (I mean, I'm old enough to have read 1-10 of the 1990 series off the shelf when they were new, but in 2013? Nobody cared.)

That's the point.

Comics fans' opinions don't matter -- movie-goers do. They drive the revenue.

You know what film catered to comic book fans (and no one else)?

Watchmen.

And it was spectacular.

And it bombed. Because only comic fans went to see it.

98% of those who went to see Captain Marvel had never read a comic appearance of hers -- I'd wager 85% of them *still* haven't.

Doesn't matter. She's here to stay.

I cared. I really liked Kelly Sue DeConnick's reinvention of Carol Danvers. Finally a woman writing the character who should have always been Marvel's Wonder Woman. But yeah, I get it, Carol Danvers wasn't an A-lister for most of her comic book career.

[@therealsilvermane]

2 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

You have my condolences.

It was my pleasure.

[Gatsby77]

11 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Never mind that Marvel Studios and Disney marketed the heck out of Captain Marvel for like five months. Never mind that Captain Marvel got tons of free publicity when she became a political-cultural stormbringer causing Rotten Tomatoes to change the way they aggragated user reviews. Never mind that she was the MCU's first solo female led hero (which is pretty big). Never mind people like me who saw it 7 or 8 times in the movie theater because it was so entertaining to us. And oh yeah, people lined up to see who the savior of the Avengers was, because yes, she was generally unknown to the non-comic book reading public before the movie. And oh yeah, it's a major Marvel Studios movie that's not about a guy who rides on ants. The Marvel Studios label itself is the franchise linchpin. The result? Captain Marvel won and continues to make news and attract attention. Captain Marvel 2 should clear a billion again easily.

Haven't you heard?

Even the haters on the board saw it 2-3x. The additional times were so they could hate-watch and revel in just how it was. 

[theCapraAegagrus]

On 7/23/2020 at 6:39 AM, theCapraAegagrus said:

People like myself, and many others, see movies twice because they have multiple groups and/or a single viewing doesn't give you an opportunity to completely gauge a movie. I thought CM was okay the 1st time, and it was a little worse the 2nd viewing.

If I didn't pre-order tickets, I would not have gone a 2nd time.

And, yes, the film certainly made a ton from the Avengers tie-in. Nobody knew how she'd tie-in. Casuals didn't know who she was.

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, Gatsby77 said:

98% of those who went to see Captain Marvel had never read a comic appearance of hers -- I'd wager 85% of them *still* haven't.

Is this from the same research source system where you noted Brie Larson was trending on Twitter for 6.5 hours because a few people mentioned her name during the Scott Pilgrim table reading?

Or just from the Fanboys Anonymous Studio Accounting Repository, LLC?

 

[Gatsby77]

1 hour ago, theCapraAegagrus said:

By "the fans", the most logical inference you could've made is that I was referring to those who watch the MCU. Not "comic book fans".

Captain Marvel's "reviews" are mediocre at best. That's not linchpin territory. Public image does matter, too, when it comes to faces of franchises.

Overtly not true.

Better critical reviews and better box office than:

• Hulk 1 and 2
• Thor 1 and 2
• Iron Man 2
• Amazing Spider-Man 1 + 2

Better box office (the biggest measure of movie "fans" out there) than most of the overtly non-Avengers films, and the 5th-best box office of the year, ahead of such films as:

• The Rise of Skywalker
• Spider-Man: Far from Home
• Aladdin
• Joker

Here's a hint - if folks don't like a film, it bombs. Because folks tell their friends.

Perfect example of this?

Justice League. It made more than 40% of its entire domestic take in its first three days.