kav Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 No thx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 Compare a well written genius like Hannibal Lecter or a good Sherlock Holmes movie and you may see the point I am making. Just saying someone is a genius is one thing, actually demonstrating their mental accoutrements is a bit higher level of screenwriting. Just scripting someone as 'well she's a genius! she made a super suit that shoots out of a necklace!' is sloppy writing IMO. Oh yeah well my character is even smarter-he made a super suit that shoots out of a toothpick! Oh yeah well- theCapraAegagrus 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 15 hours ago, kav said: wasnt the original Mary Sue in the Star Trek fan fiction not a title character tho? I believe Capt Kirk was the title character in that one. I dont think you have to be a title character, to be a mary sue. The original Mary Sue is different than the modern sense of the term. Sidekicks are typically there to assist the main event - so they're typically great at whatever their conveyed purpose is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 13 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said: Rey is not a "Mary Sue" in its modern fanboy definition or in the original parody character definition and any attempt to label her as a "Mary Sue" is simply the essence of a double standard for female heroes. As defined by the original Mary Sue parody character, Rey is not a result of J.J. Abrams inadvertently writing himself into the Star Wars story as a perfect little character who saves everybody and everything. In the modern fanboy derogatory term, Rey is not a perfect character, either. At the same time, her story isn't finished. She starts off as a disenfranchised scavenger on a desert planet. But the reason why we are following her in Star Wars is because she is powerful with the Force and has some mysterious connection to the Jedi, which we do not know yet. Yes, towards the end of Force Awakens, Rey mysteriously knows how to use a Jedi Mind Trick and can wield a light saber in a fight when, to our knowledge, she has never wielded a light saber before. Some folks have cited this as the reason she's a "Mary Sue", but that's actually part of the mystery of who Rey is. Her story still needs to be finished by JJ Abrams in Rise of Skywalker. Is Rey a Skywalker? Is she somehow a Chosen One? Obviously Rey's "midichlorian count" is off the charts. Could she be a child of the Force like Anakin? We can't conclude the book on who Rey is until JJ Abrams gives us the final chapter of that story this Christmas. And as a side note, Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star using the Force after a couple of days training with Obi Wan on the Falcon. Rey is the picture-perfect definition of a Mary Sue. Bosco685 and kav 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 12 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said: "MacGuffin" is another word that gets overused and abused. A MacGuffin, as used by Alfred Hitchcock in an interview once, is an element of a plot in some of his movies that serves only to give the main characters something to do or chase after and thus drive the plot, and has no other purpose within the movie. The MacGuffin in his spy movies could be secret plans or plutonium sauce, it doesn't matter, as long as the characters are chasing after it. Also, a MacGuffin, like a Mary Sue, was never meant to be a term applied to all movies or taught in film school. Hitchcock merely used it as an example to say that he doesn't really care about certain elements of a story. With that, the Infinity Stones or Vibranium is not a MacGuffin. Is the One Ring in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy a MacGuffin? No. While it drives the plot of the Fellowship's mission, the Ring is also an important element within the plot. Frodo uses it at times. It tempts Boromir and other characters. Not saying the Avengers is as well written as Tolkein's classic, but the Tesseract is not a MacGuffin, either. It is an important element within the movie itself, besides also motivating the Avengers to act. The Tesseract in Avengers opens a portal through which Loki and the Chitauri enter to invade Earth. The Mind Stone in Loki's scepter influences the Avengers to argue with each other and helps bring out the Hulk on the Hellicarrier. In Infinity War and Endgame, Thanos uses the Stones throughout the movie as weapons and even turns back time with the Time Stone to revive Vision. In Black Panther, Vibranium does not drive the plot. What drives the plot is T'Challa needing to get the throne back from Killmonger. That concludes this segment of Hitchcock 101. Not really. You seem to have a problem with poor writing. Maybe you should take issue with the Mary Sues and MacGuffins themselves, instead of the words that exist to define them. Bosco685 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 11 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said: The original Mary Sue is different than the modern sense of the term. Sidekicks are typically there to assist the main event - so they're typically great at whatever their conveyed purpose is. The original Mary Sue was perfect at everything with no training, young, female, and upstaged the main characters. How is the modern sense version different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 12 hours ago, kav said: The original Mary Sue was perfect at everything with no training, young, female, and upstaged the main characters. How is the modern sense version different? Modern definition of a Mary Sue doesn't need to be young or female. It basically defines any primary character that is perfect without reason. Which Rey fits to a tee. It's very strange that Rey is the Mary Sue while Kylo Ren actually has character development. Typically, the villain is the OP object to defeat - without much reason as to how/why s/he is so powerful. The hero typically has to overcome that obstacle. For whatever reason, they chose to just make Rey powerful without logical reason. Questionable and odd choices there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kav Posted September 6, 2019 Share Posted September 6, 2019 7 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said: Modern definition of a Mary Sue doesn't need to be young or female. It basically defines any primary character that is perfect without reason. Which Rey fits to a tee. It's very strange that Rey is the Mary Sue while Kylo Ren actually has character development. Typically, the villain is the OP object to defeat - without much reason as to how/why s/he is so powerful. The hero typically has to overcome that obstacle. For whatever reason, they chose to just make Rey powerful without logical reason. Questionable and odd choices there. that is odd. bad guy gets fleshed out character good guy doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted September 14, 2019 Author Share Posted September 14, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callaway29 Posted September 15, 2019 Share Posted September 15, 2019 1 hour ago, Bosco685 said: I like his character and all, but I’m ready to move on... theCapraAegagrus and Bosco685 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 On 9/14/2019 at 6:43 PM, Bosco685 said: Stupid, stupid idea IMO. Bosco685 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ygogolak Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 This movie takes place between Civil War and Infinity War. Not really surprising that RDJ is in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted September 16, 2019 Share Posted September 16, 2019 24 minutes ago, ygogolak said: This movie takes place between Civil War and Infinity War. Not really surprising that RDJ is in it. Surprising? No. However, based on the fact that in Infinity War; 1. Tony Stark hadn't buried the hatchet with Steve, and; 2. Romanoff was clearly working with him, it just seems like an all-around bad idea. I'm also a fan of closure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@therealsilvermane Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 7 hours ago, ygogolak said: This movie takes place between Civil War and Infinity War. Not really surprising that RDJ is in it. 7 hours ago, theCapraAegagrus said: Surprising? No. However, based on the fact that in Infinity War; 1. Tony Stark hadn't buried the hatchet with Steve, and; 2. Romanoff was clearly working with him, it just seems like an all-around bad idea. I'm also a fan of closure. During the battle at the airport, Natasha is on Team Iron Man. When the battle has ended, she has switched sides like the double agent she is and helps Cap escape. Natasha could clearly be in trouble over this switch as T'Challa told on her. We see Tony briefly confront her over it, but we don't see the ultimate result. It's possible a scene showing as such was filmed for Civil War and was left out of the film. It's possible we see in Black Widow, the ramifications of her helping Steve Rogers escape, which possibly sets up her adventure in the rest of the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 8 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said: During the battle at the airport, Natasha is on Team Iron Man. When the battle has ended, she has switched sides like the double agent she is and helps Cap escape. Natasha could clearly be in trouble over this switch as T'Challa told on her. We see Tony briefly confront her over it, but we don't see the ultimate result. It's possible a scene showing as such was filmed for Civil War and was left out of the film. It's possible we see in Black Widow, the ramifications of her helping Steve Rogers escape, which possibly sets up her adventure in the rest of the movie. The entire premise of this movie is garbage IMO. Had it been a pre-Avengers prequel, I still wouldn't see it in theaters, but it'd make more sense to me. A post-Civil War Secret Avengers BW film makes no sense to me. Whatever "ramifications" clearly wouldn't have lasted, so it's ultimately pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted September 17, 2019 Author Share Posted September 17, 2019 13 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said: A post-Civil War Secret Avengers BW film makes no sense to me. Whatever "ramifications" clearly wouldn't have lasted, so it's ultimately pointless. Isn't this film supposed to address what happened in Budapest, which Hawkeye and Natasha mention a few times since Avengers (2012)? MCU Wiki: Budapest Captain America: The First Avenger (map)The Avengers (mentioned)Captain America: The Winter Soldier (mentioned)Spider-Man: Homecoming (mentioned; deleted scene)[1]Captain Marvel (mentioned)Avengers: Endgame (mentioned)Black Widow (unreleased) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 3 minutes ago, Bosco685 said: Isn't this film supposed to address what happened in Budapest, which Hawkeye and Natasha mention a few times since Avengers (2012)? MCU Wiki: Budapest Captain America: The First Avenger (map)The Avengers (mentioned)Captain America: The Winter Soldier (mentioned)Spider-Man: Homecoming (mentioned; deleted scene)[1]Captain Marvel (mentioned)Avengers: Endgame (mentioned)Black Widow (unreleased) TBH IDK WTF it is. That's what I thought, but I've seen posts everywhere that say it takes place around 2017. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theCapraAegagrus Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 Wikipedia isn't absolute, but: "Premise Following the events of Captain America: Civil War (2016),[1]Natasha Romanoff finds herself alone and forced to confront her past.[2]" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted September 17, 2019 Author Share Posted September 17, 2019 7 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said: TBH IDK WTF it is. That's what I thought, but I've seen posts everywhere that say it takes place around 2017. 5 minutes ago, theCapraAegagrus said: Wikipedia isn't absolute, but: "Premise Following the events of Captain America: Civil War (2016),[1]Natasha Romanoff finds herself alone and forced to confront her past.[2]" It's come up more than once since Avengers (2012) though I didn't catch the map reference in First Avenger. So odd with this taking place after Civil War, if that is the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antpark Posted September 17, 2019 Share Posted September 17, 2019 6 hours ago, Bosco685 said: It's come up more than once since Avengers (2012) though I didn't catch the map reference in First Avenger. So odd with this taking place after Civil War, if that is the case. Flashback? Tony Stark: "Natasha, tell me what happened in Budapest." BW: "Well, ....." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
