Brie Larson Wants Less White Dudes Reviewing Movies

[tallyho]

Lets all just keep it friendly folks.
Its been an interesting discussion so far, lets keep it that way and avoid personal judgements on each other.

[Blx]

Im letting this thread roll but I also want to inject my voice. Brie Larson already knows this film is a bomb so she is trying to deflect the issue to something else.

Like everyone was completely sure that Wonder Woman was gonna be a complete disaster with such a skinny, non-Amazon looking girl. I mean, that costume. A complete disaster in the making, right? No way Wonder Woman is gonna turn out good.

For once, let's just hold out judgement before axing a movie.

About Larson, I guess she wants more diversity in movie critics. Is that fair to say? Maybe, the statistics say white males are dominant, but maybe that's justified, I don't know. I don't work in Hollywood. If there's some sort of gatekeeping, that would be disappointing. I would hope critics are employed and invited based on their quality and nothing else. But I don't know if that's the case. Larson seems to think so and if she feels to speak her mind about it, sure.

I'm also not even that surprised about how every topic in America can turn into a very heavy, heated discussion about politics. Your politics and the media consume are only out to put left and right against each other and everyone is going balls deep into it. As an outsider, it's a shame to see Americans actually starting to hate fellow Americans for their differences in belief.

[Leadpoison]

***deleted***

[shevek]

I'd like to point that I was the first poster on here to point out that the 2013-14 switch from Carol Danvers as the incredibly sexy Ms. Marvel to "Carl Manvers" as the boringly androgynous Captain Marvel was going to fail with comic book audiences. So far, I've been right. Now we'll see what happens with the movie.

I actually think that Brie Larson is targeting the wrong people anyway when she makes her complaint about the mainstream movie-reviewing press being too white and male. Because even if it is, the mainstream movie-reviewing press is very dominated by social progressives. So even the white males in that profession will be "caping hard" for Captain Marvel . They're her best whiteknights, they're not her enemies - she should be sucking up to them. Instead, she's causing them to self-flagellate with guilt, and contemplate stepping aside so that someone higher on the Stack of Oppression can take their job? Thinning the herd of white male *liberal* writers won't help the cause of her movie because she needs their good reviews!

The people she should be angry at instead (if she really needs to be angry at anyone..) is the underground / Youtube groundswell of hardcore geek culture resentment when movie studios start eliminating their cultural icons and start replacing them with soyboys and Mary Sues. Sure, a lot of those types are white males (MGTOW, Comicsgate/Gamergate, conservatives, libertarians, voluntarists, anti-identity politics types, whatever) but definitely not all of them..there are plenty of non-whites and women who hated the direction The Last Jedi and Solo: A Star Wars Story took, as well. SJWs in the comicbook industry call these folks (eg Ethan Van Sciver) 'alt-right Nazis' even though they aren't, and now their newest target is artistic genius J. Scott Campbell (nobody draws women better..except maybe Frank Cho). Larson hasn't gone that far, because to be honest, I don't think she's aware of the groundswell of resentment from the underground. I don't think she knows about Youtube stuff. I think all she sees and knows about is the mainstream press (who are really her allies, as I've said above!).

As for too many white males reviewing movies and/or superhero things in the mainstream media, that is also NOT the case everywhere. In my city, for example, for the past decade or more there have been: 1) a white female, boomer-aged, reviewing the bulk of movies for the daily paper. 2) a black male, boomer-aged and geekish, writing the bulk of any comicbook or sci-fi related articles for the daily paper and 3) a white female, X-er aged, writing pretty much all the movie reviews for the major alternaweekly. All three of the reviewers leaned heavily towards the progressive side of the political spectrum, and it showed in their reviews, but never became overly annoying. In fact, #3 writer championed Heroineburgh as a feminist undertaking, and made sure to pass along an assignment to cover it to her successor (also a white female). Sorry to have to use so much identity politics to prove a point, but if you want to play Brie Larson's game and offer counter-examples to her thesis, that's the only way to do it, because that's how Brie sees people, apparently.

I wish her the best on the Captain Marvel movie and hope that I (and others like MH) are wrong about its propensity to bomb. But I'm not holding my breath, either. We'll just have to see.

[Dogfish]

I'm also not even that surprised about how every topic in America can turn into a very heavy, heated discussion about politics. Your politics and the media consume are only out to put left and right against each other and everyone is going balls deep into it. As an outsider, it's a shame to see Americans actually starting to hate fellow Americans for their differences in belief.

Political discussions are going to get pretty heated, politics is heated. You don't get much more heated in politics than putting small children in cages because of who their parents are, which is where politics is at these days.

Best bet is to just get on Twitter and rage at your opponents of choice, then it's out of your system, then we can all come together here and talk about things that are shiny and bouncy.

[Dogfish]

BTW the idea that Captain Marvel is going to bomb is pretty unlikely. It's got three things going for it:

1. It's going to be Black Panther for women. Wonder Woman could have been this but it dropped the ball, also to be fair when it came out nobody know what a Black Panther movie looked like. Now they do, expect Captain Marvel to be it. It'll also be a refresher for the series and a chance to introduce the new alpha dog. Expect the unapologetic female badass dial to be stuck around 11 for pretty much the entire thing.

2. It's the MCU first attempt at a hero with Superman level power. The classic ludicrously powerful flying superman. That's a marked escalation from the powers of any of the heroes in the previous movies. That means it's going to look way more spectacular than anything else they've ever done, especially since it's set in the middle of a weird space war.

3. The story is the Kree-Skrull War, which is about as epic as it gets, considering they've already had Infinity War.

My guess is that it'll be probably pretty good (I don't expect masterpieces out of Marvel movies, but they do solid work) and it'll put the groundwork in for the later Kree-Skrull arc and it will set up Captain Marvel's return for Infinity Wars 2 and the hype will be bigger than anything we've ever seen.

[RedMountain]

In all honesty I'll probably be skipping the film anyways just because I'm such a traditionalist fan of the original Ms. Marvel in the sexy leotard and sash costume, but my comic glory days were in the 90s.

I also have an issue with how the MCU tends to stray so much from the comics in terms of power creep, where you have Thor pretty much being a sissy until Ragnarok and then becoming the badass he should have been all along in Infinity War. It also made me laugh how Stark goes toe to toe with Thanos, even injuring him slightly, while using a weak version of his suit that is somewhat damaged, meanwhile Hulk gets his ass kicked by Thanos in like 5 seconds...when we've seen Hulk go toe to toe in some epic throwdowns with Thanos many times in the lore of Marvel. A Hulk vs. Thanos moment in the MCU should have been just as brutal and knock down as the Hulk vs. Abomination fight in the Edward Norton film, not a 10 second laugh fest with Thanos making Hulk look like a complete lightweight.

Now they are going to bring in Captain Marvel...and make her the god of the MCU, which again I honestly don't care for as a lore/writing decision. One of the things about Marvel comics I always enjoyed was they had a good balance of characters that could all work well together in a universe without anyone really being able to god-mod except for some of the more powerful villains, which is kind of how it should be. My big turn off with DC has always been the number of unbeatable Mary Sues they have who can save the day with their pinkie finger. If we look through the comics, Ms. Marvel/Binary/Captain Marvel is a powerful character, but she's not Superman level, she's not the Hulk, hell she's not even Thor when he's written and shown properly, but yet we're just going to throw her to the top of the power chart because why??? I honestly have no idea, and its these narrative decision that the MCU makes that honestly turn me off to the larger team up films. To me their best offerings have always been the stand alone/origin movies and I really enjoy Black Panther because it was just a story about a different universe set within the MCU. I didn't enjoy the Avengers films or Infinity War nearly as much as the solo Iron Man or Captain America movies for this same reason, but now I'm rambling.

Either way, not really concerned about the politics or SJW stuff, I ignore that everyday because if you pay attention to politics and the news you'll think the world is going to end in 5 minutes and everything is terrible and evil, which is simply not true. It's also kind of hilarious how worked up people get over a movie. If you have issues with it on a political level like that...uh just don't go...don't support it with you're money, that's going to do a hell of a lot more than getting angry about it on a website. I've just never been all that excited for this film in the first place and I think having Captain Marvel turn out to be the savior of the MCU is just a poor decision from a character and universe standpoint. I'd be much more excited about either a She Hulk movie or a stand alone Valkyrie film.

[Dazzle1]

D.C has been the non Mary sue of the two.

Forget the live movies but the Trinty has stayed intact

there are minor issues like turning Flash into an idiot overpowering Martian Manhunter, making Hawk Girl's mace far too powerful but those are minor compared to Marvel.

[Dogfish]

D.C has been the non Mary sue of the two.

Forget the live movies but the Trinty has stayed intact

there are minor issues like turning Flash into an idiot overpowering Martian Manhunter, making Hawk Girl's mace far too powerful but those are minor compared to Marvel.

Ah come off it. DC could have invented the term Mary Sue for Batman. Batman's entire super power is money. You don't get much bigger of a Mary Sue than a character who literally buys his way into a group alongside Superman and Wonder Woman.

[Dazzle1]

D.C has been the non Mary sue of the two.

Forget the live movies but the Trinty has stayed intact

there are minor issues like turning Flash into an idiot overpowering Martian Manhunter, making Hawk Girl's mace far too powerful but those are minor compared to Marvel.

Ah come off it. DC could have invented the term Mary Sue for Batman. Batman's entire super power is money. You don't get much bigger of a Mary Sue than a character who literally buys his way into a group alongside Superman and Wonder Woman.

Well, first Batman would be a Gary Stu

Second Bruce/Batman is not perfect he has many personality flaws. He also sacrificed a great deal in time and pain to train in all the skills he has. His super power is that he is rich

[sugarcoater]

BTW the idea that Captain Marvel is going to bomb is pretty unlikely. It's got three things going for it:

1. It's going to be Black Panther for women. Wonder Woman could have been this but it dropped the ball, also to be fair when it came out nobody know what a Black Panther movie looked like. Now they do, expect Captain Marvel to be it. It'll also be a refresher for the series and a chance to introduce the new alpha dog. Expect the unapologetic female badass dial to be stuck around 11 for pretty much the entire thing.

2. It's the MCU first attempt at a hero with Superman level power. The classic ludicrously powerful flying superman. That's a marked escalation from the powers of any of the heroes in the previous movies. That means it's going to look way more spectacular than anything else they've ever done, especially since it's set in the middle of a weird space war.

3. The story is the Kree-Skrull War, which is about as epic as it gets, considering they've already had Infinity War.

My guess is that it'll be probably pretty good (I don't expect masterpieces out of Marvel movies, but they do solid work) and it'll put the groundwork in for the later Kree-Skrull arc and it will set up Captain Marvel's return for Infinity Wars 2 and the hype will be bigger than anything we've ever seen.

One issue I see with the above argument is the idea of MCU's attempt at a hero with Superman-level power. Superman has mostly flopped in the past 15 years. Furthermore, plots with characters who are so powerful tend to be boring--there is only so many superhuman punches one cares to watch.

[Disciple]

I've thought about Superman's popularity (or lack thereof) for a long time now, and the conclusion I've come to is this... it's because he was the first.

When he debuted back in the '30s, there were no "rules" on how a superhero story was supposed to function, because the superhero genre didn't exist. If his creators took any cues at all, it was probably from what was then the most popular children's genre: fairy tales. Mary Poppins, Peter Pan, and a whole load of quasi-magical characters who didn't need to be three-dimensional human beings, because their fantastic powers and adventures were enough to wow the audience.

Alas, the word adventurer, which used to be almost synonymous with superhero, has pretty much gone the way of the dodo. Today's superheroes are expected to be 100% reactive - "Oh, the Joker's killed a bunch of people! I'd better go stop him!" - instead of deliberately seeking excitement - "Crime rates down? Welp, time to join the Foreign Legion! Maybe Europe has someone who needs beating up!" There's a lot more navel-gazing among them, too. I suppose it works for underdog characters like Spider-Man and Daredevil, but it shouldn't be the end-all be-all of superhero storytelling.

Because you know what? Superman was never meant to be an underdog. He was meant as a childish fantasy (some would say outright revenge fantasy) for the millions of Americans who were put out of work by the Great Depression and wanted to wring some Establishment necks. After WWII they tamped down the political aspect, but ramped up the fantasy about a thousandfold. Witches! Mermaids! Time travel! Evil clones! 10,000 different colors of Kryptonite! Then the '70s rolled along, DC got it in its head that it needed to be more like Marvel at all costs, and the character became, well... mundane. His powers got tamped down, his romances got a lot more soap opera-y, and a lot of his stories became hideously predictable punch-fests.

That last thing is, by the way, my biggest hang-up with modern Superman (especially Man of Steel). In a good Superman story, the suspense shouldn't come from if he'll survive the conflict, but from how he'll resolve it. You flip through any issue of Action Comics from the '30s or '40s (when they sold best), and Superman will at most trade three or four hits with the villain (even if the villain is another Kryptonian); the real meat will come from how he plans to foil the villain's plot before it kills any of his squishy mortal friends. Think back to Superman '78 - its most iconic moment isn't Superman kicking Luthor's ass, but Superman thinking outside the box to un-nuke the Earth after it got nuked. Is it goofy? Yes. Is it nonsensical? Hell yes. But isn't it so much more creative than hinging a whole story on "make bad guy faw down an' go boom"?

[Dogfish]

The problem is also the last few attempts at Superman have been really bad. The Snyder version is an abomination. People try to humanise Superman, try to make him dark and edgy, but he's not. You could in theory make a dark and edgy Superman movie, but Superman is a boyscout. He helps old ladies across the road, he'll stop to explain to little kids why racism is bad, he'd give you half his sandwich if you forgot your lunch. He's a paragon of virtue. Christopher Reeve nailed that perfectly with the character, that naive charm and curiosity underpinned by the confidence of invincibility. The fact that Superman is a relentlessly selfless, kind, good person is what makes the character, the powers themselves, the abilities, they've changed over the years to suit whatever situation comes up, the character should be defined by his heart.

Which is neither here nor there really in relation to Captain Marvel. Similar power set, but I expect the character is going to be different. The MCU already has a Superman kind of uncompromisingly goody-goody hero in Captain America so I suspect they'll probably want Captain Marvel to be taking over the kind of Iron Man role.

[Dazzle1]

The problem is also the last few attempts at Superman have been really bad. The Snyder version is an abomination. People try to humanise Superman, try to make him dark and edgy, but he's not. You could in theory make a dark and edgy Superman movie, but Superman is a boyscout. He helps old ladies across the road, he'll stop to explain to little kids why racism is bad, he'd give you half his sandwich if you forgot your lunch. He's a paragon of virtue. Christopher Reeve nailed that perfectly with the character, that naive charm and curiosity underpinned by the confidence of invincibility. The fact that Superman is a relentlessly selfless, kind, good person is what makes the character, the powers themselves, the abilities, they've changed over the years to suit whatever situation comes up, the character should be defined by his heart.

Which is neither here nor there really in relation to Captain Marvel. Similar power set, but I expect the character is going to be different. The MCU already has a Superman kind of uncompromisingly goody-goody hero in Captain America so I suspect they'll probably want Captain Marvel to be taking over the kind of Iron Man role.

That is a problem with the 1 diensional characters both Supes and Cap are potrayed in the movies.
It seems Marvel has dumbed down Captain america and even made him a Beta Mail as comparedto Iron Man or Black widow

In D.C's case they have never got a good actor to play the role. sad to say the best Clark Kent was George Reeves

[Dogfish]

The problem is also the last few attempts at Superman have been really bad. The Snyder version is an abomination. People try to humanise Superman, try to make him dark and edgy, but he's not. You could in theory make a dark and edgy Superman movie, but Superman is a boyscout. He helps old ladies across the road, he'll stop to explain to little kids why racism is bad, he'd give you half his sandwich if you forgot your lunch. He's a paragon of virtue. Christopher Reeve nailed that perfectly with the character, that naive charm and curiosity underpinned by the confidence of invincibility. The fact that Superman is a relentlessly selfless, kind, good person is what makes the character, the powers themselves, the abilities, they've changed over the years to suit whatever situation comes up, the character should be defined by his heart.

Which is neither here nor there really in relation to Captain Marvel. Similar power set, but I expect the character is going to be different. The MCU already has a Superman kind of uncompromisingly goody-goody hero in Captain America so I suspect they'll probably want Captain Marvel to be taking over the kind of Iron Man role.

That is a problem with the 1 diensional characters both Supes and Cap are potrayed in the movies.
It seems Marvel has dumbed down Captain america and even made him a Beta Mail as comparedto Iron Man or Black widow

In D.C's case they have never got a good actor to play the role. sad to say the best Clark Kent was George Reeves

They are not one dimensional. A character who will always try to do the right thing is not one dimensional, Winter Soldier and Civil War are two of the best superhero movies of recent years and the central conflict of both movies hinges absolutely on the problems that come from a rigid dedication to doing the right thing. The early Superman movies captured that too, Superman 2 in particular. Doing the right thing, even if you have super powers, is hard but for those characters there is no other choice. That doesn't make them one dimensional but it can make them predictable, it can make them vulnerable, but putting it simply it's what makes them heroes.

I think Marvel have done a superb job with Captain America in the movies, considering what they had to work with. They've given a relatively obscure and faintly ridiculous character some gravitas and depth, and at the same time managed to build most of the best movies of the new comic book movie era around him. If that sort of stuff was easy to do there'd be a lot more good comic book movies.

[Dazzle1]

DogFish

I would not say Captain america is obscure

I am a D.C person

But I would say of individual Marvel characters he is in the top 5

[Disciple]

DogFish

I would not say Captain america is obscure

I am a D.C person

But I would say of individual Marvel characters he is in the top 5

Right now, perhaps. But before the MCU came along? No, no he wasn't.

Before the 2010s, Cap's biggest stint as a best-seller was all the way back in the 1940s. Marvel's primary breadwinner has always been Spider-Man; who got to sit at Spidey's right hand has fluctuated over the decades (in the '60s it was the Fantastic Four; in the '80s and '90s it was the X-Men), but Cap (and the Avengers in general) pretty much never made the cut before the MCU came along. In fact, that's why the Avengers were the building block of the MCU - because Marvel had already licensed off all its A-list properties to Hollywood veterans (Spider-Man to Sony, Fantastic Four and the X-Men to Fox... hell, they even gave the Hulk and Namor to Universal).

[Dazzle1]

DogFish

I would not say Captain america is obscure

I am a D.C person

But I would say of individual Marvel characters he is in the top 5

Right now, perhaps. But before the MCU came along? No, no he wasn't.

Before the 2010s, Cap's biggest stint as a best-seller was all the way back in the 1940s. Marvel's primary breadwinner has always been Spider-Man; who got to sit at Spidey's right hand has fluctuated over the decades (in the '60s it was the Fantastic Four; in the '80s and '90s it was the X-Men), but Cap (and the Avengers in general) pretty much never made the cut before the MCU came along. In fact, that's why the Avengers were the building block of the MCU - because Marvel had already licensed off all its A-list properties to Hollywood veterans (Spider-Man to Sony, Fantastic Four and the X-Men to Fox... hell, they even gave the Hulk and Namor to Universal).

----------

I did say Individual

Marvel other than Spiderman always was about teams: X men , avengers, others

D.C was more about the iconic indviduals

[Shakeshift]

Ah come off it. DC could have invented the term Mary Sue for Batman. Batman's entire super power is money. You don't get much bigger of a Mary Sue than a character who literally buys his way into a group alongside Superman and Wonder Woman

Batman's real superpower is white privilege. He's as Mary Sue as you can imagine. A billionaire who gets off on beating up people with mental problems as a masked vigilante because his parents died at a young age. Boo fucking hoo.

[Void]

This thread is evolving, huh?

I would contest that Batman is a 'Mary Sue' but I can't tell if you guys are joking. If you're serious, would you share your reasoning for why he is such a 'Mary Sue'? I know his wealth has been mentioned, but I'm sure it's being based on more than that... right?

[sugarcoater]

Do we have to use the kids’ hipster terms like “Mary Sue”? Can we just use the actual descriptors for characters referenced? Just seems a bit juvenile in that sense. Then again, we are analyzing entirely fictional comic book characters...it’s about as nerdy as it gets

[Dogfish]

This thread is evolving, huh?

I would contest that Batman is a 'Mary Sue' but I can't tell if you guys are joking. If you're serious, would you share your reasoning for why he is such a 'Mary Sue'? I know his wealth has been mentioned, but I'm sure it's being based on more than that... right?

Because he's got the abilities to put him at the top table in the Justice League and the only justification for them ever given is he's rich and sad about his dead parents. Most heroes have a backstory that explains why they are heroes. Batman's is that he got sad after his parents died and is rich. This means he can fight better than people who have trained from birth to fight. This means he is smarter than people who have dedicated their lives to study. There is no justification for his powers except the suggestion that rich people are better than normal people. In a lot of ways I suppose he's like James Bond, who is also kind of a crummy character for similar reasons.

That being said, some stories and some eras are better than others. The more that stories lean in to how damaged and troubled Batman is the better, because it creates the idea that the heavy psychological costs of his becoming the Batman are the source of his power, that his strengths are a consequence of being emotionally brutalised and that he's carrying a gigantic burden. The stories where he's just a bro doing hero stuff and having a great time are where things go wrong, he shouldn't be happy or comfortable ever, he should be obsessed and paranoid.

[Void]

Hurm…

There's a sense to that, especially if you take the (older) iterations of the character that aren't fleshed out, but certainly for the contemporary character I would strongly disagree. It is a pretty big part of his arc that he commits himself to becoming as formidable as possible, and devotes great time and effort towards that goal. That he is motivated to go so far because he watched his parents gunned down before him is perfectly acceptable - it's a motivation you see used a lot to generate hardcore action heroes, I think. He *has* trained, he *has* studied, he's *always* planning, *always* preparing. The justification for the outcome is that he has undergone this transformation from innocent, gifted rich kid, to the OP, uncompromising phantom of Gotham. Sure, conventionally we don't ever *see* that transformation, and we just get the results and a vague explanation for why he became this way, but the same is true of every action hero who begins the story as being capable. He also regularly loses and is outsmarted.

He at least had to *do* stuff to be this way, and it requires skill. Yes, it's wish fulfilment for the writer and reader alike, but again the same is true for virtually all comic heroes, right? Elsewhere, you have dudes like Superman who was born a god with limitless power, or the Flash who was struck by lightening and became effectively the god of speed. They have *much* more power than Batman, which they did much less to earn (they did nothing), and there is surely an even more pronounced amount of wish fulfilment going on. Superman is unaccountably well adjusted for someone as ludicrously powerful and isolated as he is, and his motivations seem to hinge on his own innate goodness. Either way, characters that simply had great power thrust upon them by accident or by their own innate nature abound around the comics - and most have less of a lens placed over why they are in the business of being a hero, certainly compared to Batman and his whole mythos. Batman made a clear, defining choice, committed his whole life to it, and continually follows through on that one all-consuming goal.

To be clear, I'm not saying all those other characters are Mary Sues - I dislike the term and can only think of a handful of true candidates across all fiction - but I'm just making the case that if Batman qualifies because his money gives him an advantage then you need to haul in the majority of action heroes with unearned 'privilege'. Now, if the problem instead moves to Batman just being OP and being unreasonably formidable - sure, I agree, but that's not a Mary Sue. I guess part of this is that action heroes are often implausibly capable, right? But that's why we enjoy them.

Also, yes, I very much agree that Batman is at his best as a character when he is portrayed as obsessed and paranoid.

[Visitor]

The original origin story of Batman skips years of development and training to learn the combat skills and detective that makes him what he became. It also had a holster on his utility belt for a gun that got dropped after the first year, because back then Batman wasn't adverse to killing the villain if he felt it was justified as when he took out a vampire.

It pretty much wasn't until the 1970s and after that they started flashbacks and explanations of how he went from rich orphan to Batman. They kept adding more episodes of training with different martial artists and learning how to be a detective. The being rich allowed him to get all those toys and have the leisure to be Batman. He didn't need to have a job and depending upon the version have to run Wayne Enterprises.

The main difference is Batman had to work to become a hero and didn't have powers thrust upon him by birth (Superman, Wonder Woman, and those) or by accident (Flash, Green Lantern, ...). The closest to him is Green Arrow who was also rich and had to learn archery and fighting skills.

[RedMountain]

Batman to me is a mary sue/gary stu, or whatever TF you call it just simply because he has so much plot armor he should be the main character in an anime. One of my favorite images of Batman all time was on deviantart where someone had the Joker finally shoot and kill Batman, only for Batman to re-animate and reveal he was a time lord and his utility belt was essentially a version of the Tardis that allowed him to get any gadget he needed at any time. He consistently defeats characters that would break him in half with their pinkie finger, he has every gadget available for every situation, he's taken Hawkman's mace in the face and it didn't even daze him, just knocked him back a bit(this was in JLU cartoon IIRC) and he just has all these feats in the comics that are hilariously laughable for being a non-powered individual, dodging the Omega Beams, etc. give me a F'in break, lol. I mean the whole Batman vs. Superman thing is so laughably ridiculous it isn't even funny. Even if introduced to green K, supes still has enough time to skewer Batman through whatever armor he has with his heat vision...or shoot him in the face with it...etc. It just annoys me how many match ups Batman goes into where he is clearly out of his league yet somehow the plot armor lets him come out on the winning end time and time again.

[Mr. X]

Speaking of Captain Marvel... where are the trailers? Where are the clips? Pics? Promotionals?

They are wrapping up filming. This is supposed to be their flag ship character. The face of the MCU. So why aren't we seeing one shot from this movie?

[Femina]

Speaking of Captain Marvel... where are the trailers? Where are the clips? Pics? Promotionals?

They are wrapping up filming. This is supposed to be their flag ship character. The face of the MCU. So why aren't we seeing one shot from this movie?

It's actually because they are overextending themselves. There's only so much room in a year for movies to come out, get marketed, pushed and shipped... and in today's market people only go see a few movies a year. Captain Marvel is coming out like... a few weeks before Avengers freaking 4... and with Ant Man + the Wasp coming out right now they probably don't want too much promotional material distracting from it... the trailer is supposed to be out next month, It's probably ready NOW but they want to push it AFTER the current movie comes out.

What they need to do is stop billing to many movies in a year. Black Panther was only a month ahead of Avengers 3 and because of that I ended up saving my money a month, if CM weren't of immense importance for me I would be skipping it as well as it will be releasing with even less time between it and the next avengers than was between BP and A3.

Edit: P.S. I've always been annoyed that Captain Marvel got pushed back to make room for Ant Man and the Wasp (not because I DON'T WANT AM&tW, but because it always felt like a half step 'man and woman lead' film that got sandwiched in front of the FULL step 'female lead' film they'd ALREADY billed... fast forward to 2018 and the marketing situation is only piling on top of that.

[Visitor]

Well part of it is Disney wants to push films that have a better chance of success since they are sequels. After the "failure" of Star Wars: Solo to meet expectations at the box office there is a the need to do ones that will do as well as the earlier ones in the series. Also in a few years they will have finished all the sequels of their best selling movies: Avengers, Guardian of the Galaxy, Ant Man, and the Spiderman reboot leaving the new ones and Black Panther sequels that was a surprise success for the first one.

Captain Marvel is the first of next generation that may fail to do as well as the first ones that are ending.

[JohnFeer]

DIzNee also wanna show up Warner Brothers for its entirely singular success with Wonder Woman....there is that fact as well.

[RedMountain]

Is Avengers 4 already done? I saw something today that said the next films would be Ant Man/Wasp, Captain Marvel, and then a Spiderman movie...but how the F' can they have a Spiderman movie before the results of Infinity War get reversed...?

[Dogfish]

Speaking of Captain Marvel... where are the trailers? Where are the clips? Pics? Promotionals?

They are wrapping up filming. This is supposed to be their flag ship character. The face of the MCU. So why aren't we seeing one shot from this movie?

It's fucking Disney, when the marketing is unleashed you won't be able to miss it.

Don't forget either it's not coming out for nine months. People would be sick to death of it if they started the hype train now.

[Femina]

Is Avengers 4 already done? I saw something today that said the next films would be Ant Man/Wasp, Captain Marvel, and then a Spiderman movie...but how the F' can they have a Spiderman movie before the results of Infinity War get reversed...?

Avengers 4 is immediately after Captain Marvel. Seriously it's not even like a full month after.

[Visitor]

All they need to do is put Spiderman before Infinity Wars in the time line. There's plenty of time from the last movie to do it especially if they don't use Iron Man again.

[ivandobsky]

I guess if it's true that men and women, white people and non-white people tend to have different taste in movies, then maybe this is a "problem", but only because/if people use things like "rotten tomatoes" scores to inform whether they go see a movie.

Much better to find film reviewers who either tend to like the films you do, or entertaining enough to read/watch so you can figure out whether it's worth a watch. They don't need to have the same skintone and sex organs as you do, but maybe that's just me. Film review recommendations: RedLetterMedia and Alachia Queen on Youtube.

A technical solution to this problem is for everyone to score films they watch, then correlations can predict what score you'd give a movie. Maybe impractical to cross-correlate everyone, but just doing yours vs the set of "rotten tomatoes" film reviewers or something would be handy. Added to the to do list!

[Dogfish]

I guess if it's true that men and women, white people and non-white people tend to have different taste in movies, then maybe this is a "problem", but only because/if people use things like "rotten tomatoes" scores to inform whether they go see a movie.

Much better to find film reviewers who either tend to like the films you do, or entertaining enough to read/watch so you can figure out whether it's worth a watch. They don't need to have the same skintone and sex organs as you do, but maybe that's just me. Film review recommendations: RedLetterMedia and Alachia Queen on Youtube.

A technical solution to this problem is for everyone to score films they watch, then correlations can predict what score you'd give a movie. Maybe impractical to cross-correlate everyone, but just doing yours vs the set of "rotten tomatoes" film reviewers or something would be handy. Added to the to do list!

Review aggregation sites are the worst thing in whatever culture they appear. The ones in gaming for example mean that if a reviewer gives a score that deviates from the norm they will get people coming after them on social media, messages to their bosses to get them sacked, claims they are on the take and all that shit. I expect movie fans are similar but it's not my field so much so I haven't seen it first hand.

Point being is that back in the day a reviewer or a critic had an audience, and they would say what they wanted to say about a work for the benefit of their audience. That's how it should be, I find somebody I largely agree with and I seek their opinions on things I might like to see, it worked.

Now what we've got because of review aggregators and their central conceit that there must be a universal objective truth of how good something is, is a situation where if somebody gives something a 2/10 that's not just a score they are giving to their audience, they are ruining the scientific quest for the objectively true score. Suddenly people don't have an audience, they are outliers to be pummelled into compliance.

[shevek]

There's a simple situation to the aggregators. Just refuse to be part of them. Don't give any stars or numbers. Review a movie entirely qualitatively
and not quantitatively.

Also...I personally think (and I'm betting Mr. X is in this camp as well) that they aren't showing anything from Captain Marvel because they are starting to realize that it's a shitshow, and they're trying to figure out how to spin it positively. But I guess we'll see.

[ivandobsky]

The ones in gaming for example mean that if a reviewer gives a score that deviates from the norm they will get people coming after them on social media, messages to their bosses to get them sacked, claims they are on the take and all that shit.

I don't know about people getting sacked for giving outlier review scores, but I have seen plenty of tedious discussion about scores out of 10 below game reviews ("reads like an 8!"), and scores being inflated such that 7/10 is average, etc, leading to some sites dropping them entirely, which seems sensible.

I have heard of reviewers not receiving review copies of games, tickets to movie premieres etc, if they're too critical of things. This has been the case pretty much forever I guess. See Nerd Crew.

[Femina]

There's a simple situation to the aggregators. Just refuse to be part of them. Don't give any stars or numbers. Review a movie entirely qualitatively
and not quantitatively.

Also...I personally think (and I'm betting Mr. X is in this camp as well) that they aren't showing anything from Captain Marvel because they are starting to realize that it's a shitshow, and they're trying to figure out how to spin it positively. But I guess we'll see.

Your wrong... and Mr. X already voiced exactly that like fifteen or so posts up... so I'll tell you what I told him. Marvel is in a pickle of marketing. Disney did the same thing the other year with Star Wars: The Last Jedi where we saw trailers for The Force Awakens ages in advance, but only finally started seeing trailers for TLJ a few months in advance because they were busy pushing Rogue One for the first half of the year. Now obviously depending on who you ask TLJ WAS a shit show but to many people it was good (I mean... not to ME, but it is a DECISIVE film, not a commercial or critical failure... I thought Rogue One was a Shit show as well) . Marvel's got smarter heads running the show than Star Wars has got, and frankly... there's no reason to believe that they'll put out anything worse than an acceptable blockbuster UNTIL proven otherwise (So far their worst film is Thor 2 or Age of Ultron... both of which are a dozen times more entertaining and watchable than any Transformer film)

I'm off track. My point is, it's a marketing kerfuflle. Ant Man 2 is out this week, they don't want people going 'oh man I just GOTTA see... CAPTAIN MARVEL!!! When they want people to pay money on Ant-Man this Friday. Captain Marvel's trailer is due to come out this month... it's NO shocker that Ant-Man will have been comfortably in theaters for a few weeks by then.

[lionbadger]

Also...I personally think (and I'm betting Mr. X is in this camp as well) that they aren't showing anything from Captain Marvel because they are starting to realize that it's a shitshow, and they're trying to figure out how to spin it positively. But I guess we'll see.

I have a nagging suspicion that even if Captain Marvel is the greatest film ever (I do worry about over power but they've had 10 years to figure this out) that some guys are just going to bitch anyway

The evidence to date from Marvel is that they can make a superhero movie and that they learn from their mistakes. Infinity War was the big chance for a dumpster fire and they kicked that right through the basket to score a home run.

[Mr. X]

Also...I personally think (and I'm betting Mr. X is in this camp as well) that they aren't showing anything from Captain Marvel because they are starting to realize that it's a shitshow, and they're trying to figure out how to spin it positively. But I guess we'll see.

someone brought up a point about the budget being low, like $120 mil vs usual Marvel stuff that is over $170 mil. That's pretty low for a movie with a flag ship character and some Man of Steel style fighting.

[Femina]

Also...I personally think (and I'm betting Mr. X is in this camp as well) that they aren't showing anything from Captain Marvel because they are starting to realize that it's a shitshow, and they're trying to figure out how to spin it positively. But I guess we'll see.

someone brought up a point about the budget being low, like $120 mil vs usual Marvel stuff that is over $170 mil. That's pretty low for a movie with a flag ship character and some Man of Steel style fighting.

They haven't revealed a budget. The `120 million' thing has to do with how much of the film gets a tax cut for filming in California. Basically, what this means is that they can get tax cuts UP TO a total of $120 million (I think its actually like 118 or something) The budget is likely a good deal more, they just wont be saving anything more out of the rest of it for filming in Cali.

[Dazzle1]

Also...I personally think (and I'm betting Mr. X is in this camp as well) that they aren't showing anything from Captain Marvel because they are starting to realize that it's a shitshow, and they're trying to figure out how to spin it positively. But I guess we'll see.

someone brought up a point about the budget being low, like $120 mil vs usual Marvel stuff that is over $170 mil. That's pretty low for a movie with a flag ship character and some Man of Steel style fighting.

They haven't revealed a budget. The `120 million' thing has to do with how much of the film gets a tax cut for filming in California. Basically, what this means is that they can get tax cuts UP TO a total of $120 million (I think its actually like 118 or something) The budget is likely a good deal more, they just wont be saving anything more out of the rest of it for filming in Cali.

What do people in California thing with the budget problems and high income taxes of these tax breaks for movie studios?

[Femina]

Also...I personally think (and I'm betting Mr. X is in this camp as well) that they aren't showing anything from Captain Marvel because they are starting to realize that it's a shitshow, and they're trying to figure out how to spin it positively. But I guess we'll see.

someone brought up a point about the budget being low, like $120 mil vs usual Marvel stuff that is over $170 mil. That's pretty low for a movie with a flag ship character and some Man of Steel style fighting.

They haven't revealed a budget. The `120 million' thing has to do with how much of the film gets a tax cut for filming in California. Basically, what this means is that they can get tax cuts UP TO a total of $120 million (I think its actually like 118 or something) The budget is likely a good deal more, they just wont be saving anything more out of the rest of it for filming in Cali.

What do people in California thing with the budget problems and high income taxes of these tax breaks for movie studios?

They think it provides high paying jobs that give people money to buy things with.

[Dogfish]

The ones in gaming for example mean that if a reviewer gives a score that deviates from the norm they will get people coming after them on social media, messages to their bosses to get them sacked, claims they are on the take and all that shit.

I don't know about people getting sacked for giving outlier review scores, but I have seen plenty of tedious discussion about scores out of 10 below game reviews ("reads like an 8!"), and scores being inflated such that 7/10 is average, etc, leading to some sites dropping them entirely, which seems sensible.

I have heard of reviewers not receiving review copies of games, tickets to movie premieres etc, if they're too critical of things. This has been the case pretty much forever I guess. See Nerd Crew.

They don't get sacked for it because no boss in the world fires their writer over a point here or there on a game that has outraged a bunch of rabid fans. This doesn't stop the aforementioned rabid fans trying to get folks sacked though. Rabid fans not the smartest unfortunately.

[Mr. X]

They haven't revealed a budget. The `120 million' thing has to do with how much of the film gets a tax cut for filming in California. Basically, what this means is that they can get tax cuts UP TO a total of $120 million (I think its actually like 118 or something) The budget is likely a good deal more, they just wont be saving anything more out of the rest of it for filming in Cali.

Why is a budget screwed California giving a tax break to luxury entertainment production? And why wouldn't that apply across the board to every movie? That means every budget is skewed.

[lionbadger]

Why is a budget screwed California giving a tax break to luxury entertainment production? And why wouldn't that apply across the board to every movie? That means every budget is skewed.

Laffer curve plus states/ countries wanting high employment over CIT or WHT returns

plus, movie finance is so well structured these days that it's hard to make an actual loss on a film, Uwe Boll is probably the master of this sort of funding, and it's why so much mediocre shit gets churned out

[Femina]

They haven't revealed a budget. The `120 million' thing has to do with how much of the film gets a tax cut for filming in California. Basically, what this means is that they can get tax cuts UP TO a total of $120 million (I think its actually like 118 or something) The budget is likely a good deal more, they just wont be saving anything more out of the rest of it for filming in Cali.

Why is a budget screwed California giving a tax break to luxury entertainment production? And why wouldn't that apply across the board to every movie? That means every budget is skewed.

Because its still a lot of money that wouldn't be entering into the economy another way. There's also some tax breaks going into Captain Marvel from Louisiana (So California isn't the only place that does this)

Funny how Captain Marvel's film is the ONLY Marvel studio film getting this form of budget scrutiny. You'll find this stuff is pretty Par for the course in almost every high budget film. Blockbusters are expensive, so they find ways to recoup some of the cost which some states are willing to give better breaks for because even if you give back 20 million of a 120 million dollars, you've still just pushed 100 million dollars into your economy. It's fluid, money is SUPPOSED to enter and exit, if it just sits and sponges up at a corporate headquarters somewhere its just going there to die.

[Visitor]

Lots of places give tax breaks because it's more than the film budget in the area. You have employment of locals, money spent locally by actors and other employees, and encouraging other films and TV shows to relocate there based upon how other productions went.

As to whether a film is profitable depends upon contracts to divide the "profits" because some successful films and show never technically have a profit it the studio can keep from paying out. There have been lawsuits where actors never got payments when they were told there was never a profit. It's the difference between being paid out of the net or gross proceeds.

Unless a film is marginal, then there is scrutiny about film cost versus sales. Especially if there are poor sales because then people like to complain about how much was wasted on a flop.

[sugarcoater]

In reading over some comments, I am wondering now how movie ticket prices really affect consumers. We are talking about the price of two specialty coffees for a movie ticket (barring the IMAX shows). If a movie is good enough, I don't see someone staying home because they bought a $10 ticket two weeks or a month earlier.

[Dogfish]

In reading over some comments, I am wondering now how movie ticket prices really affect consumers. We are talking about the price of two specialty coffees for a movie ticket (barring the IMAX shows). If a movie is good enough, I don't see someone staying home because they bought a $10 ticket two weeks or a month earlier.

Yeah but there's popcorn, there's travel, there's kids or babysitters to deal with, trip to the movies is very much still a bit of a mission.