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

[@therealsilvermane]

1 hour ago, Angel of Death said:

Good on Marvel Studios for admitting that Brie Larson cannot carry a comic book movie.

Brie Larson carried a 2019 comic book movie that grossed $1,128,000,000 box office worldwide. I think they have full faith in Captain Marvel and expanding her circle of influence so that, just like Captain America and Iron Man before, she has a strong(er) superhero supporting cast in her image.

Also, as I've been saying, all MCU films are team-up films. Multiverse of Madness will be a team-up of Dr Strange, Scarlet Witch, Clea, practically all the Marvel Comics wizards. Love and Thunder will be a team-up of Marvel's gods: Thor, Jane Foster Thor, Valykyrie, and apparently Hercules. That's how it works. Kevin Feige has apparently hoodwinked the haters into thinking Captain Marvel/Brie Larson isn't in this movie at all.

[theCapraAegagrus]

3 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Brie Larson carried a 2019 comic book movie that grossed $1,128,000,000 box office worldwide. I think they have full faith in Captain Marvel and expanding her circle of influence so that, just like Captain America and Iron Man before, she has a strong(er) superhero supporting cast in her image.

Also, as I've been saying, all MCU films are team-up films. Multiverse of Madness will be a team-up of Dr Strange, Scarlet Witch, Clea, practically all the Marvel Comics wizards. Love and Thunder will be a team-up of Marvel's gods: Thor, Jane Foster Thor, Valykyrie, and apparently Hercules. That's how it works. Kevin Feige has apparently hoodwinked the haters into thinking Captain Marvel/Brie Larson isn't in this movie at all.

No, she didn't. Captain Marvel's financial success is due to being sandwiched between Infinity War and Endgame. Her performance is woefully plank, and without Sam Jackson's Nick Jury, surely would be a bomb. Hence the follow-up to that movie being reconfigured to a team-up rather than a faithful sequel. Good on Marvel Studios for recognizing their weakest characters.

I look forward to Spider-Man taking over as the franchise's leader with his 3rd self-titled film.

[@therealsilvermane]

17 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

I look forward to Spider-Man taking over as the franchise's leader with his 3rd self-titled film.

Spider-Man is and always will be the flagship character of Marvel Entertainment, the same way Mickey Mouse is and always will be the flagship character of Disney Entertainment. But Marvel Studios isn't going to put a character(ie Spidey) at the forefront of its movie universe and tie said character to its many crossover stories if they're not sure if they're even going to be able to use the character in its movies in the future. Peter Parker Spider-Man isn't going to be the center of the Marvel Cinematic Universe until they fully own the character's movie rights 100% and that won't happen until years from now when Sony one day decides to pull out of moviemaking completely and sell its studio. But by then, Marvel Studios will probably want to roll with Miles Morales as the new Spider-Man.

[theCapraAegagrus]

1 minute ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Spider-Man is and always will be the flagship character of Marvel Entertainment, the same way Mickey Mouse is and always will be the flagship character of Disney Entertainment. But Marvel Studios isn't going to put a character(ie Spidey) at the forefront of its movie universe and tie said character to its many crossover stories if they're not sure if they're even going to be able to use the character in its movies in the future. Peter Parker Spider-Man isn't going to be the center of the Marvel Cinematic Universe until they fully own the character's movie rights 100% and that won't happen until years from now when Sony one day decides to pull out of moviemaking completely and sell its studio. But by then, Marvel Studios will probably want to roll with Miles Morales as the new Spider-Man.

Sure they will, because it would entice Sony to continue dealing, and he's a lovable character.

Miles Morales will never have the draw power of Peter Parker. Spider-Man will be front-and-center long before then.

[@therealsilvermane]

1 hour ago, Angel of Death said:

Sure they will, because it would entice Sony to continue dealing, and he's a lovable character.

Miles Morales will never have the draw power of Peter Parker. Spider-Man will be front-and-center long before then.

Look, with the release of Sony's Venom Carnage trailer this morning, I'm reminded how sad it is that these characters aren't in the MCU. But one day, I hope and fully expect them to be Disney properties and be permanent members of the MCU along with Spider-Man. I expect in the far out future, there might even be an Avengers level crossover threat featuring the Symbiotes like Venom and Knull with Spider-Man at its center. But that's never going to happen until Sony hands Spider-Man over to Disney, and nobody knows when that's going to happen. Until then, the most one can expect is for Spider-Man to have a marginal influence in the Marvel Cinematic Universe if Sony and Disney can strike another limited movie deal after No Way Home.

Until then, other characters will hold down the base. If the MCU is going cosmic and multiversal, it makes sense for characters like Captain Marvel and Dr Strange to come to the forefront anyway. Already characters like Kamala Khan and Riri Williams are ready to take over the role of young starry-eyed superhero ingenue that Peter Parker kind of was to Tony Stark.

[theCapraAegagrus]

4 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Look, with the release of Sony's Venom Carnage trailer this morning, I'm reminded how sad it is that these characters aren't in the MCU. But one day, I hope and fully expect them to be Disney properties and be permanent members of the MCU along with Spider-Man. I expect in the far out future, there might even be an Avengers level crossover threat featuring the Symbiotes like Venom and Knull with Spider-Man at its center. But that's never going to happen until Sony hands Spider-Man over to Disney, and nobody knows when that's going to happen. Until then, the most one can expect is for Spider-Man to have a marginal influence in the Marvel Cinematic Universe if Sony and Disney can strike another limited movie deal after No Way Home.

Until then, other characters will hold down the base. If the MCU is going cosmic and multiversal, it makes sense for characters like Captain Marvel and Dr Strange to come to the forefront anyway. Already characters like Kamala Khan and Riri Williams are ready to take over the role of young starry-eyed superhero ingenue that Peter Parker kind of was to Tony Stark.

Marvel Studios already has Spider-Man. They don't need the symbiotes or Knull. Spider-Man is already on-track to be the next face of the franchise now that Iron Man is gone.

It's funny, because people also said that "The Snyder Cut is never going to be released". The lesson? Don't say "never".

So, while Carol Danvers is pushed to the side in the follow-up to her self-titled film, Spider-Man will gain more traction in his 3rd self-titled film in the MCU.

[@therealsilvermane]

3 minutes ago, Angel of Death said:

So, while Carol Danvers is pushed to the side in the follow-up to her self-titled film, Spider-Man will gain more traction in his 3rd self-titled film in the MCU.

It's crazy anybody thinks that just because Carol Danvers' sequel title is a name that proclaims she's going to have a slew of characters created in her image just like Iron Man had War Machine and Peter Parker Iron Man Jr., that Marvel Studios, who has said over and over again that they want women to come to the forefront in the MCU, that they're going to push aside the one alive major solo female character to the side because of...what again? Because a bunch of haters don't like Brie Larson's social activism while trying to blame it on her...what's that again...her acting?

And she's going to get pushed aside so that, as Kevin Feige just put it, another "white guy" can come in and show her what real leadership is?

Carol Danvers isn't getting pushed aside for anyone. Yes, she's going to share her spotlight with her new supporting mates, just like Brie Larson always shares the spotlight with her fellow sisters like when she brought up her stunt doubles on stage at the MTV Movie Awards or constantly interviews women difference makers on her YouTube channel, but Carol Danvers will be the emotional lead in her sequel movie, just like Steve Rogers was the emotional lead in Civil War, a movie filled with every Avenger except Thor.

[theCapraAegagrus]

3 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

It's crazy anybody thinks that just because Carol Danvers' sequel title is a name that proclaims she's going to have a slew of characters created in her image just like Iron Man had War Machine and Peter Parker Iron Man Jr., that Marvel Studios, who has said over and over again that they want women to come to the forefront in the MCU, that they're going to push aside the one alive major solo female character to the side because of...what again? Because a bunch of haters don't like Brie Larson's social activism while trying to blame it on her...what's that again...her acting?

And she's going to get pushed aside so that, as Kevin Feige just put it, another "white guy" can come in and show her what real leadership is?

Carol Danvers isn't getting pushed aside for anyone. Yes, she's going to share her spotlight with her new supporting mates, just like Brie Larson always shares the spotlight with her fellow sisters like when she brought up her stunt doubles on stage at the MTV Movie Awards or constantly interviews women difference makers on her YouTube channel, but Carol Danvers will be the emotional lead in her sequel movie, just like Steve Rogers was the emotional lead in Civil War, a movie filled with every Avenger except Thor.

It's crazy anybody thinks someone being relegated to a sidekick would be a 'leader' for the franchise going forward.

Spider-Man is a real leader with an actor who can hold his own in self-titled movies. Hence being the next face of the franchise.

[theCapraAegagrus]

Fans don't care about woke when it comes to what characters they like. Spider-Man is loved because he's a great character and his actor does a fantastic job. The same went for Black Panther and Chadwick Boseman.

Trying to force the plank of Brie Larson as Captain Marvel to be the next leader for the franchise did not work. Quality of character matters more than superficial biological details.

[Bosco685]

[Bosco685]

[mrwoogieman]

I finally saw this film and came here to say something negative about Brie Larson's wooden performance and the complete lack of charisma and general appeal. After reading a few pages of comments, 

I think I'll instead comment on the equally disturbing de-aged Samuel L. Jackson CGI-simulacrum that they ginned up. This "performance" is how I know that James Dean will someday "star" in another movie. All it will take at this point are heirs who value money over decency, can't be too long now. 

[kav]

On 1/22/2020 at 7:24 PM, paperheart said:

‘Captain Marvel’ Sequel Officially In Development At Disney’s Marvel Studios

https://deadline.com/2020/01/captain-marvel-sequel-officially-in-development-at-disneys-marvel-studios-1202838665/

searched but could not find a thread, i'm sure it's buried somewhere among the thousands

Brie ges better with age!  Nacho typical superhero movie!  They're gonna make a lotta cheddar with this one, jack!  Might need Swiss bank account!  Looks really gouda!  Cap marvel movies a real cottage industry!

[PeterPark]

On 1/23/2020 at 9:32 AM, @therealsilvermane said:

 

Here's a little history for you. Male directors suck at making solo female super-hero movies. Catwoman and Elektra were both made by dudes and not only are they the worst comic book movies ever, they rank among the worst movies ever. Then WB hires a female director to helm Wonder Woman and the movie doesn't suck. In fact, it was a success.

Get a TALENTED female director to direct a female led movie. Sure a male director can also understand the nuances of film language and getting the best performance from your actors, but a female can add that extra empathy of living her whole life as a woman to add a little extra to the female protagonist that will show in the final product.

Jeez.

Those directors don't suck because they are male, they are just bad directors on those movies. That happens a lot. Sooooo many movies suck, many by men and many by women. You certainly don't need a female director to direct a female lead, just a good one, if you want the movie to be good. There are plenty of men and women that would do a terrible job. Those aren't the ones you want to hire to make the movie.

[bentbryan]

6 hours ago, mrwoogieman said:

I finally saw this film and came here to say something negative about Brie Larson's wooden performance and the complete lack of charisma and general appeal. After reading a few pages of comments, 

I think I'll instead comment on the equally disturbing de-aged Samuel L. Jackson CGI-simulacrum that they ginned up. This "performance" is how I know that James Dean will someday "star" in another movie. All it will take at this point are heirs who value money over decency, can't be too long now. 

Why not? Peter Cushing had a role almost 2 decades after his death  

[theCapraAegagrus]

11 minutes ago, bentbryan said:

Why not? Peter Cushing had a role almost 2 decades after his death  

And he looked f-ing terrible. The people who disagree are legally blind.

[@therealsilvermane]

5 hours ago, PeterPark said:

Those directors don't suck because they are male, they are just bad directors on those movies. That happens a lot. Sooooo many movies suck, many by men and many by women. You certainly don't need a female director to direct a female lead, just a good one, if you want the movie to be good. There are plenty of men and women that would do a terrible job. Those aren't the ones you want to hire to make the movie.

Thanks for that blast from the past. Yeah, you're right. WW1984 is proof of that. I mean, Patty Jenkins is a decent director obviously, but there are also many other factors contributing to bad movies. Bad -script. Bad producer. All of the above.

Edited May 11, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[Bosco685]

56 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Thanks for that blast from the past. Yeah, you're right. WW1984 is proof of that. I mean, Patty Jenkins is a decent director obviously, but there are also many other factors contributing to bad movies. Bad ---script. Bad producer. All of the above.

To assume ONLY a female director can successfully lead a female-focused action/fantasy/fiction film ignores so many successes over the years.

 

It really is okay to look beyond the thinking of Ike Perlmutter by focusing on a few comic book films that failed to make a point. And by the way, Atomic Blonde is a comic book movie and has a sequel in the works.

Edited May 11, 2021 by Bosco685
Making the point further to help educate

[@therealsilvermane]

33 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

To assume ONLY a female director can successfully lead a female-focused action/fantasy/fiction film ignores so many successes over the years.

It really is okay to look beyond the thinking of Ike Perlmutter by focusing on a few comic book films that failed to make a point. And by the way, Atomic Blonde is a comic book movie and has a sequel in the works.

Sure. At the same time, the above list of movies are pretty hardcore action flicks that kind of feature a lone woman(Thelma and Louise aside) doing hardcore action stuff. Agree, all good movies. But perhaps a female writer/director can bring a feminine experience that a male director might overlook because he's never seen life from the point of view of a woman or a sisterhood. For instance, in Captain Marvel, I'm not sure which parts of the film the directors Anna Boden or Ryan Fleck were responsible, but there were so many scenes between Carol and Maria, or Carol and Monica, and maybe even Carol and Minn-Erva, that seemed to come from a place of experience that I suspect were the result of Boden's directorial touch. Of course, any director can do a dialogue scene, but there seemed to be certain subtle touches or dialogue bits in the female to female interactions that, like I said, seemed to come from a place of experience.

Edited May 11, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Sure. At the same time, the above list of movies are pretty hardcore action flicks that kind of feature a lone woman(Thelma and Louise aside) doing hardcore action stuff. Agree, all good movies. But perhaps a female writer/director can bring a feminine experience that a male director might overlook because he's never seen life from the point of view of a woman or a sisterhood. For instance, in Captain Marvel, I'm not sure which parts of the film the directors Anna Boden or Ryan Fleck were responsible, but there were so many scenes between Carol and Maria, or Carol and Monica, and maybe even Carol and Minn-Erva, that seemed to come from a place of experience that I suspect were the result of Boden's directorial touch. Of course, any director can do a dialogue scene, but there seemed to be certain subtle touches or dialogue bits in the female to female interactions that, like I said, seemed to come from a place of experience.

You took that long to write this response as I updated the image 21 minutes ago?

I think your views are very biased when it comes to Captain Marvel and the MCU. Even when you are presented facts. That's not being open to discussion. That's you attempting to force your views.