CAPTAIN MARVEL starring Brie Larson (3/8/19) 5 5

[Logan510]

1 hour ago, TwoPiece said:

Math is hard for some people.

So is objective reference and subjective perspective. Oh well. Not anything that I need to read up on...

@Logan510, FYI, The Incredible Hulk was way worse than I remember. On the opposite side of the coin, The First Avenger was much better than I remember.

Cain't wait for next weekend's Phase 2 marathon...

 We probably look for different things in comic book movies. All I can say is I fell asleep during Captain America and I did not for the Incredible Hulk.

[Prince Namor]

10 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.

 

In the movie, Fury says, "It's just a scratch", and Talos says, "No.." and then they cut away. There is more to that scratch "than meets the eye."

[Bosco685]

3 hours ago, Chuck Gower said:

In the movie, Fury says, "It's just a scratch", and Talos says, "No.." and then they cut away. There is more to that scratch "than meets the eye."

Ahhh..I SEE what you did there. 

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.

[Bosco685]

A fan was so inspired by the movie, she drew this piece. 

 

She added Nick Fury on his good side as she has to wait for a future film to have a better explanation how a cat (Flerken) scratch caused all that damage to his face. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Bosco685

[@therealsilvermane]

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.

[Bosco685]

17 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

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.

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

Quote

As fans will recall, during the course of The Winter Soldier, Fury appears to "die" after he's targeted by the eponymous assassin, a.k.a. Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan). Soon after this, Alexander Pierce questions Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) about Fury’s supposedly traitorous activities. In their conversation, Pierce shows Captain America a photograph of him and Nick Fury, where the latter is taking an oath. Given that this is the type of ceremony that FBI directors engage in when they assume office, it's highly likely that this is when Fury is succeeding Pierce and being sworn in as Director of S.H.I.E.L.D.

 

Pierce recalls that he met Fury when the latter was S.H.I.E.L.D.’s station deputy of their Bogotá facility. Aside from Pierce saying that the photo was taken five years after this event, The Winter Soldier doesn’t specify when this occurred within the MCU’s timeline. Yet this scene confirms that, at this pivotal part of Nick Fury’s life, both of his eyes were healthy and whole.

 

On first inspection, the youthful Nick Fury in Captain Marvel seems to complement this depiction. Aside from having more hair in Captain Marvel than in The Winter Soldier’s photograph, the new movie similarly shows Fury with two undamaged eyes. But this is where things break down; Captain America: The Winter Soldier depicts Nick Fury becoming both Deputy Chief of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s Bogotá station and Director of S.H.I.E.L.D. with both eyes intact. If Fury’s fateful betrayal occurs in Captain Marvel when he’s only a desk jockey, then the new movie will create a plot hole. After all, how can Fury have both eyes when he's being sworn in as Director of S.H.I.E.L.D., when he lost his left eye years earlier in Captain Marvel?

Now he didn't lose the eye yet at the end of Captain Marvel. But there would have been some form of damage to the area from that scratch. Twist #1.

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. Twist #2.

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Bosco685

[@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.

Edited April 7, 2019 by @therealsilvermane

[Bosco685]

By the way, the MCU has not been consistent with the Nick Fury eye damage for some time. Look at the damage from a shot in Avengers (2012). It clearly looks like an explosion occurred causing the damage.

But then in Winter Soldier, it changes to some up-and-down scarring, with a more exposed scar by his nose below the patch.

To then what is revealed when he lifted his eyepatch IN THE VERY SAME MOVIE. They differ each time.

[Bosco685]

16 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

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.

Quote from Alexander Pierce in Winter Soldier:

Quote

 

"That photo was taken five years after Nick and I met, when I was at State Department in Bogotá. ELN rebels took the embassy. Security got me out, but the rebels took hostages. Nick was Deputy Chief of the S.H.I.E.L.D. station there, and he comes to me with a plan: he wants to storm the building through the sewers. I said, ‘No, we'll negotiate." Turned out, the ELN didn't negotiate, so they put out a kill order. They stormed the basement, and what do they find? They find it empty. Nick had ignored my direct order, and carried out an unauthorized military operation on foreign soil; and saved the lives of over a dozen political officers, including my daughter."

"So you gave him a promotion?"

"I've never had any cause to regret it."

 

Sounds like he was promoted from there.

Edited April 7, 2019 by Bosco685

[Gatsby77]

I don't see anything particularly disqualifying about either the scarring or the change in scarring around the eye over the years.

Why?

We're only *assuming* it's scarring. It could also be subcutaneous evidence of the alien infection from the flerken scratch. If his body's been fighting the alien infection (which also likely embued him with some as-yet-undisclosed powers) for years or decades, it makes sense that evidence of the infection could shift over time (think like scraches from poison ivy).

[@therealsilvermane]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

Quote from Alexander Pierce in Winter Soldier:

Sounds like he was promoted from there.

Yes, but I don't think the photo taken five years after Bogota (a country which fits with Fury's likeness for countries that start with a B) necessarily means that was Fury's promotion to Director of SHIELD, though Pierce says that event played a part in Fury's later promotion. Five years, in my opinion, is just too little time for a SHIELD station deputy to be promoted to Director.  I do find it more than creepy though that it's a HYDRA Agent who is responsible for making Fury the Director.

I guess I'm also saying the Russo Brothers aren't infallible. As cool as their MCU films have been, of all the MCU films, theirs have the most plot holes or illogical character moves I can remember. For instance, in Winter Soldier, why does HYDRA wait until Fury is in his SHIELD armored SUV to take him down? Why not just arrest him quietly in the elevator like they tried with Steve Rogers? Or have Winter Soldier shoot him in the parking lot? Their timeline of Nick Fury's SHIELD career doesn't have to be strict canon. Maybe Pierce was even fuzzy with his details. None of them can be trusted anyway.

When we meet Fury in Captain Marvel in 1995, he does seem a little low on the totem pole, so yeah, maybe there's some inconsistency there, with the Winter Soldier timeline as spelled out by Alexander Pierce, but it's not glaring in my opinion.

[@therealsilvermane]

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

[Comicopolis]

He could be wearing a false eye in that photo.

[Bosco685]

29 minutes ago, Comicopolis said:

He could be wearing a false eye in that photo.

Now THIS is the most logical recommendation on what is going on in the photo. We see at the end of Captain Marvel...

Spoiler

Coulson brings Nick Fury a box full of fake eyes to choose from. Though there is no scratch on his face in the photo, it does explain the undamaged eye.

Though that then opens up a new issue. Even in Winter Soldier Nick Fury has a damaged eyeball. You can't just a fake eye into an existing eyeball like wearing a contact lense.

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

2 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Yes, but I don't think the photo taken five years after Bogota (a country which fits with Fury's likeness for countries that start with a B) necessarily means that was Fury's promotion to Director of SHIELD, though Pierce says that event played a part in Fury's later promotion. Five years, in my opinion, is just too little time for a SHIELD station deputy to be promoted to Director.  I do find it more than creepy though that it's a HYDRA Agent who is responsible for making Fury the Director.

I guess I'm also saying the Russo Brothers aren't infallible. As cool as their MCU films have been, of all the MCU films, theirs have the most plot holes or illogical character moves I can remember. For instance, in Winter Soldier, why does HYDRA wait until Fury is in his SHIELD armored SUV to take him down? Why not just arrest him quietly in the elevator like they tried with Steve Rogers? Or have Winter Soldier shoot him in the parking lot? Their timeline of Nick Fury's SHIELD career doesn't have to be strict canon. Maybe Pierce was even fuzzy with his details. None of them can be trusted anyway.

When we meet Fury in Captain Marvel in 1995, he does seem a little low on the totem pole, so yeah, maybe there's some inconsistency there, with the Winter Soldier timeline as spelled out by Alexander Pierce, but it's not glaring in my opinion.

George C. Marshall was promoted ahead of much more senior generals from a one-star general to the four-star Army Chief of Staff. Such things do happen with the right skills, leadership backing and timing.

How I took Pierce's statement from the quote is he promoted him into the senior role, and never regretted his decision. Now knowing he is also a Hydra leader, this may have been done to be a less senior person in charge of SHIELD leading to an easier time for his organization to infiltrate SHIELD. That is a strong possibility since that was the intent to begin with is infiltrate and overwhelm over time. To his surprise, though, Nick Fury turned out to be much more capable than he counted on.

[paperheart]

after $27MM WW weekend and $1.038BB total, $1.1BB seems just in reach

Edited April 7, 2019 by paperheart

[@therealsilvermane]

47 minutes ago, paperheart said:

after $27MM WW weekend and $1.038BB total, $1.1BB seems just in reach

$400mil domestic also the next big milestone.

[theCapraAegagrus]

15 hours ago, Logan510 said:

 We probably look for different things in comic book movies. All I can say is I fell asleep during Captain America and I did not for the Incredible Hulk.

The CGI for TIC is reminiscent of PS2 graphics. It's also about half romance movie.

I guess if you want 1/3 of your comic book movies to be awkward romance scenes, then we do in fact look for different things.

I was just letting you know my thoughts after the Phase 1 weekend.

[Logan510]

4 hours ago, TwoPiece said:

The CGI for TIC is reminiscent of PS2 graphics. It's also about half romance movie.

I guess if you want 1/3 of your comic book movies to be awkward romance scenes, then we do in fact look for different things.

I was just letting you know my thoughts after the Phase 1 weekend.

I’m guessing you don’t really like The Hulk as a character.

[CycleGirl]

On 4/5/2019 at 8:36 PM, MYNAMEISLEGION said:

Good god

Okay, I just have to say it... It makes me happy to see girls dressed as heroes instead of as princesses waiting for a hero to save them. Go save the day, girls!