That's understandable. I'm sure it will be on Disney+ early in 2024. I hope you manage to avoid the spoilers until you get to see it.
The Marvels (2023)
- Thread starter renaissance_man
- Start date
joberg
Legendary Member
From Hollywood writer deBoer:
Titling his piece 'We're Still Stuck with "Strong Female Characters" Who Are Smug, Mean, & Reductive', deBoer - an outspoken Marxist - tore into Disney for pandering in their new release, as well as other studios like Warner Bros for much of the same.
deBoer stated his main qualm with the new film - the persona of the character that's front and center and being portrayed by Larson.
'I don’t like how Captain Marvel is portrayed in the original and so I’m not particularly interested in the new film,' he wrote. 'I find the way that they choose to characterize her really aggravating, and it’s not an isolated problem.
'I’m tired of the archetype Larsen’s[sic] character represents, which is a parody of what feminine strength looks like.'
He went on: 'Women-led movies, women characters who are competent and self-assured, women characters who are funny, women characters who aren’t afraid to mix it up with the men, women characters who demonstrate excellence and pride.
'We need more of all of these things in Hollywood,' he concluded.
'What we don’t need is the cliché that Captain Marvel represents and which has become inescapable, the woman who speaks only in insults, who condescends to everyone around them, who’s perpetually unimpressed.
Titling his piece 'We're Still Stuck with "Strong Female Characters" Who Are Smug, Mean, & Reductive', deBoer - an outspoken Marxist - tore into Disney for pandering in their new release, as well as other studios like Warner Bros for much of the same.
deBoer stated his main qualm with the new film - the persona of the character that's front and center and being portrayed by Larson.
'I don’t like how Captain Marvel is portrayed in the original and so I’m not particularly interested in the new film,' he wrote. 'I find the way that they choose to characterize her really aggravating, and it’s not an isolated problem.
'I’m tired of the archetype Larsen’s[sic] character represents, which is a parody of what feminine strength looks like.'
He went on: 'Women-led movies, women characters who are competent and self-assured, women characters who are funny, women characters who aren’t afraid to mix it up with the men, women characters who demonstrate excellence and pride.
'We need more of all of these things in Hollywood,' he concluded.
'What we don’t need is the cliché that Captain Marvel represents and which has become inescapable, the woman who speaks only in insults, who condescends to everyone around them, who’s perpetually unimpressed.
JPH
Sr Member
In the movie she has made a bunch of mistakes.
She is protrayed as a bit of a loner, waiting for THE CALL, then she goes and tries to "fix" whatever issue. She seems to have come to terms with her power, but she also now knows every "fix" may kill thousands while saving millions.
The main plot centers around one of her "fixes." Which caused unexpected results.
She is definitely not perfect.
And I know she (Edit Brie L.) killed her likability by being so douchey during her press for the first movie. She was a sweet-heart for the critics after the movie, Room. She is *MUCH BETTER* than She-Hulk's "infinitely better than you." She (character) apologizes and has some empathy, but does what is required in a bad situation.
Remember, she was a pilot, who busted her hump to get where she was.
I am not saying to love her, or the role, because I can also understand that she poisoned the environment, but some of what you ask for *is* in the film.
Last edited:
Cephus
Master Member
Every bit of what I said was demonstrably true and verifiable. Everything that... someone else said, was emotional. That's how these discussions always go. One side accuses us of being emotional, while being entirely emotional on their own. Then we trot out the demonstrable box office numbers and they complain we're haters. No, we just understand how the marketplace works and they don't. That's why we are consistently right and they are consistently wrong.
Just wait for the next movie and they'll be wrong again.
I don't necessarily disagree.
I just think there were two separate discussions going on.
Last edited:
I haven't seen The Marvels and wouldn't say anything disparaging unless actually having watched it.
I thought that Brie Larson was miscast from the beginning. She just doesn't exude pilot, warrior, superhero. And didn't really win me over in Endgame.
I feel like Marvel should have made a push for Katheryn Winnick, who both looks the part and is a fantastic actress.
But glad for those that like the new film and of course it's probably tremendous for little girls to watch and have some sort of representation on screen.
I thought that Brie Larson was miscast from the beginning. She just doesn't exude pilot, warrior, superhero. And didn't really win me over in Endgame.
I feel like Marvel should have made a push for Katheryn Winnick, who both looks the part and is a fantastic actress.
But glad for those that like the new film and of course it's probably tremendous for little girls to watch and have some sort of representation on screen.
Absolutely two different conversations going on.
I could give less than two fornications about how well a film performs at the Almighty Box Office, if I like the film then I like the film. It's ignorant to begin to suggest that enjoyment or quality is only valid based on BO numbers, because if that were the case, then movies considered 'Classics' today, like Blade Runner or The Thing wouldn't have stood the test of time.
This constant back & forth seems like it'll continue because some want to discuss the films story & some want to discuss metrics, just like the divide between artists & suits... One looks at the bottom line while the other camp looks at the creative.
My annoyance (& I'm just a member here like everyone else) is the blending in the mind & insistence that numbers are a metric of quality & therefore if that's all you're looking at, then you're 'right'. We're not even discussing the same thing.
Here's my last controversial take I guess... Agree with me or not, it's completely fine. I'm a big boy & the comments of a stranger online aren't going break me because I'm not a pronoun, so feel free to call me out by name if you don't like what I posted...
If you've not actually seen the media being discussed, whether it's this movie or another piece of media, your opinion in the discussion is less than nothing & it's a waste of everyone's time to even share it.
Not in any way saying you can't or shouldn't, because I'm not a mod, the owner or a gatekeeper. Just being absolutely clear on where I stand.
I could give less than two fornications about how well a film performs at the Almighty Box Office, if I like the film then I like the film. It's ignorant to begin to suggest that enjoyment or quality is only valid based on BO numbers, because if that were the case, then movies considered 'Classics' today, like Blade Runner or The Thing wouldn't have stood the test of time.
This constant back & forth seems like it'll continue because some want to discuss the films story & some want to discuss metrics, just like the divide between artists & suits... One looks at the bottom line while the other camp looks at the creative.
My annoyance (& I'm just a member here like everyone else) is the blending in the mind & insistence that numbers are a metric of quality & therefore if that's all you're looking at, then you're 'right'. We're not even discussing the same thing.
Here's my last controversial take I guess... Agree with me or not, it's completely fine. I'm a big boy & the comments of a stranger online aren't going break me because I'm not a pronoun, so feel free to call me out by name if you don't like what I posted...
If you've not actually seen the media being discussed, whether it's this movie or another piece of media, your opinion in the discussion is less than nothing & it's a waste of everyone's time to even share it.
Not in any way saying you can't or shouldn't, because I'm not a mod, the owner or a gatekeeper. Just being absolutely clear on where I stand.
Cephus
Master Member
One rational one and one emotional one. It's just that the emotional people are reacting emotionally to the rational discussion when it doesn't get them anywhere. There are undeniable facts here. Movies exist to make money. Studios put out money to make a profit. That's reality. If it doesn't make money, companies go under. People don't get paid. Stockholders overthrow CEOs, which is looking more likely now with Disney. Therefore, the only rational way to have these conversations is to look at the box office performance and there, with absolutely no question, Disney is losing tons of money. The most recent Disney earnings call was proud that they only lost $400 million on streaming this quarter. Only $400 million. They're also proud that Disney+ has only lost 14 million subscribers in the last couple of years. That's cause for celebration. We know what these studios are spending on projects, we know how much money they get in return and the two are not equivalent. Not even close. Therefore, there is a demonstrable problem that some poeple just don't want to talk about because it hurts their feelings.
Screw their feelings. They'd rather whine because they wish the world was different than it is, but it's not. We have to look at these things rationally and I don't think a lot of them are capable. So yes, there are two conversations going on, one for people with brains and the other for people with emotions.
Personally, I'm sticking with the former.
Cephus
Master Member
But if the films don't make money then they don't make those films anymore. You have to care about the box office because that is the pulse of the industry. The industry could just go away if they can't recoup their investments.
It's fine to talk about story, but you can't get away from the business. There's no accounting for taste, but there is a reality beyond taste. I'm sure there are people who liked Ishtar, but that doesn't make it a good movie, or a successful movie. It almost bankrupted Columbia Pictures and led Coca Cola to sell it outright and get out of the entertainment business entirely. There's no way to just focus on "I liked it subjectively" and have a worthwhile conversation. Disney has had flop after flop after flop and now it's affecting how their movies are being made and, potentially, whether they keep making movies in this sphere in the future.
That's important.
Quality is subjective, but movies are still a money-making game and always will be. You can't get away from that. Money is the metric by which everything flows. A movie series that makes no money doesn't continue. You might have really loved it but you're still left with nothing more. There are plenty of movies that I've loved, that didn't make money at the box office and whatever potential they might have had, that never got explored because at the end of the day, the money is what matters whether you like that or not.
joberg
Legendary Member
For some reason...and I know that the future could in the way of me being right; I don't think this last Marvel installment is going to be a cult classic like Blade Runner
Sincerely, thank you for the response.
I see our fundamental disagreement, I believe...
To me, anything worth watching, reading, or listening to is because the piece of media has something to say.
You are absolutely correct that the BUSINESS of filmmaking is to make money, & if I were a studio making films, then that would be my concern.
I'm not. I'm an audience member that watches things that I believe are going to interest me, & if it does, then the business side of it isn't my concern.
I don't rush to watch every OSCAR nominated film just because the Academy says it was good & I personally don't take my time to watch something because it's making a ton of money.
To me, something can be 'good' based on the product, but not sustainable business-wise. As I said in an earlier post in this very thread, between things having to be rewritten because of Covid, the pressure to put out content for contents sake, pressure on vfx houses to meet unobtainable deadlines, & the decision to let executives make final creative decisions, have ALL contributed to a decline in what Marvel puts out, but they seem to be course correcting & I Believe/hope this is the last thing we'll see under the old, unsustainable system.
Bottom line: I enjoy stories, & it doesn't matter to me whether it's Sir Patrick Stewart reciting Shakespeare, or a homeless man sharing his life. If I'm entertained & can get something to carry with me, then I'm good.
Never was comparing the two. Just pointing out that metrics don't always express the quality of something.For some reason...and I know that the future could in the way of me being right; I don't think this last Marvel installment is going to be a cult classic like Blade Runner
Cephus
Master Member
Quality is a very subjective thing and subjective quality doesn't keep studios in business. If you like it, fine. Nobody is going to tell you that you can't like anything you want. That's just a very small part of the actual conversation.
No, but the paraphrased statement of "This is garbage & here's the numbers to prove it" has been posted ad nauseum.
You yourself have said here that the numbers prove this is garbage, but in the Marvel /Variety thread, you claim that over a billion dollars don't count because people were 'tricked' into seeing the first Captain Marvel movie.
One minute it's numbers, next post it's agendas, then it's Brie Larson herself. We all get it. Point made.
Okay you all won me over. I’m going. Fine.
I actually like Larson despite my dislike for Captain Marvel. I don’t care about the Wandavision woman but I like Ms Marvel a lot.
I also like 90 min movies.
Mostly I like watching my flicks in a theater so I’ll always support that if I can.
So tonight at a 4:10 screening I will see if it’s really the worst thing ever.
Looking at rotten tomatoes it’s actually doing better than that 5 nights movie, but the 5 nights is making much more. Also have only seen “boring!” Reviews on 5 nights. Everyone says it’s terrible. Where’s as with Marvels I’m hearing mixed from people I trust
So here’s hoping!
I actually like Larson despite my dislike for Captain Marvel. I don’t care about the Wandavision woman but I like Ms Marvel a lot.
I also like 90 min movies.
Mostly I like watching my flicks in a theater so I’ll always support that if I can.
So tonight at a 4:10 screening I will see if it’s really the worst thing ever.
Looking at rotten tomatoes it’s actually doing better than that 5 nights movie, but the 5 nights is making much more. Also have only seen “boring!” Reviews on 5 nights. Everyone says it’s terrible. Where’s as with Marvels I’m hearing mixed from people I trust
So here’s hoping!
Cephus
Master Member
This is financial garbage, failing it its sole mission in life, to make enough money for the studio to offset the cost that it took to make it. That's factually correct. Your own personal subjective enjoyment is irrelevant to the studio.
Ok
Sorry, I couldn’t help myself on this one.
I’m a full-on lousy troll today.
Enjoy the show
Last edited:
Hold everything. Ethan has figured this whole thing out…
www.yahoo.com
It turns out that Brie being unable to properly promote the film is a big part of why it seemingly bombed (well, and trolls… the review-bombing trolls played their part too, of course…):
I see his point.
Why, a charm offensive, of the type seen in the past, would surely have turned around their fortunes:
Why 'The Marvels' bombed at the box office and what it means for the future of the once-mighty MCU
The Nia DaCosta-directed space adventure opened to $47 million domestically and just under $100 million worldwide, the worst start for any Marvel film since "The Incredible Hulk" in 2008.
It turns out that Brie being unable to properly promote the film is a big part of why it seemingly bombed (well, and trolls… the review-bombing trolls played their part too, of course…):
I see his point.
Why, a charm offensive, of the type seen in the past, would surely have turned around their fortunes:
Last edited:
CB2001
Master Member
I find his article funny because Five Nights at Freddy's did better on it's opening box office, and it being during the same strike as The Marvels. The really difference between why FNAF did better than The Marvels is because the director of the film (who is a female director) stated that she and her crew were thinking of the fandom, while providing a new take on the lore without tearing it down to try to make the film look better. Not to forget, but the FNAF movie also was made at $20 Million dollar budget, almost a fraction of the budget used for The Marvels. The Marvels literally has no excuse for their bombing except for incompetence in the storytelling and how they've mistreated their fandom.Hold everything. Why, Ethan has figured this whole thing out…
Why 'The Marvels' bombed at the box office and what it means for the future of the once-mighty MCU
The Nia DaCosta-directed space adventure opened to $47 million domestically and just under $100 million worldwide, the worst start for any Marvel film since "The Incredible Hulk" in 2008.
It turns out that Brie being unable to properly promote the film is why it seemingly bombed.
I see his point.
Why, a charm offensive, of the type seen in the past, would surely have turned around their fortunes:
Last edited:
