OncomingStorm93
-
Posts
1,962 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by OncomingStorm93
-
-
5 minutes ago, terrestrial said:
I try to learn if cultural, age,... differences or maybe different POV what which word mean for someone (had once a huge misunderstanding over the word 'best' as that gets used per region / country partly astonishingly different), or... might be the reason for feeling like to talk at cross purposes.
So, me German, English mostly self-trained, female, older than the most here = maybe another POV about how to weight things... = you, if not too obtrusive?
I'm not really following you. I think you're suggesting that I should consider other cultural or linguistic interpretations of the title "Captain Marvel"
Can you provide your interpretation of the title for me? What does the title "Captain Marvel" mean to you? What is it supposed to mean to me?
-
Just now, eddyxx said:
Dude those moments in these cbms when they come up with their name is always cringey and theres a reason why so many cbms poke fun at or wink at the idea of the heroes coming up with a name for themselves.
I’ve stated at least 3 times already I don’t need her explicitly named in the film.
I do expect proper context for the title of the film though.
Two completely different topics.
-
8 hours ago, Mulder said:
I'm honestly confused as hell why this even matters so much to you.
As I have repeated several times now, my issue with the lack of context for the film’s title is representative of the film’s other giant flaws, which I and others have touched on already.
5 hours ago, AndyK said:"Wonder Woman" was never referenced in her movie.
She didn’t need to be. Wonder Woman is self explanatory as a title. It’s an adjective followed by a noun. It means a female who accomplishes feats of wonder.
What does the “Marvel” in Captain Marvel mean? Does she ‘marvel’ at things with joy and wonder? No. I’m not asking for the film to explicitly call Carol “Captain Marvel”. I’m asking for a rational on the film’s title. But apparently that’s too much to ask for.
-
1
-
-
If ya’ll are fine with the title of a movie not making even 1% sense within the context of the film, fine. I’m happy for you.
I expect more. And with that I’m going to bed.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Mulder said:
That's a way too constrictive view on film as a medium. Broaden your film watching maybe watch some foreign stuff. Japan in particular does not follow what you describe here.
I love experimental, art house, and foreign cinema.
CM is none of those, nore was it trying to be. I’m saying that it failed at what it was trying to be (in some, not all aspects, but very important ones).
-
1
-
-
Just now, Mulder said:
A movie doesn't have to complete itself to be good. You're also obsessing way too much over a title that's taken from the comic book.
Forgive me, I didn’t realize my standards we’re too high for expecting a complete three act structure with rising stakes, developer character arcs, and closure to the story. Along with an explanation of the title of the film I just watched.
Thanks for pointing out how I’m expecting too much from my cinema experience.
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Mulder said:
A film with a whole lot of flaws due to it being an incomplete product. That film also doesn’t vibe with the “part 1” concept and tropes the other poster was suggesting.
11 minutes ago, Mulder said:It's an adaptation of the Captain Marvel comics.
Being an adaptation of another medium isn’t a “get out of jail free” card when it comes to standing on its own. Adaptations live and die on their own merits. I don’t care if this was an adaptation or not. I’m looking at this as it’s own entity, and in that regard it fails to explain its title. Very simple.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, terrestrial said:
But the most important point, to me it was a thing of surety that the average MCU watcher does not need to hear the full title to know: it has the addition 'the first Avenger', as in Captain America, the First Avenger' beside him being not an Avenger at the time of part 1.
= I tried to show you that a part 1 movie can be a first step on the road to the 'real' character, the protagonist reaches / develops / ... in the next one.
Or in the case of Captain America, in the next movie following his intro - an Avengers movie.
Where he becomes what we understand as Captain America, someone who starts to research for himself and not longer follows blindly orders.
Sounds familiar?
Steve Rogers is Captain America in Captain America: The First Avenger. He refers to himself as Captain America at two points in the script. Page 67 and Page 83. Several people call him Captain, and the "America" part is as obvious as it gets.
I don't care about the context of "The First Avenger" tagline. The film is called Captain America, and features Captain America referring to himself as Captain America.
Captain Marvel has nothing even close. I don't care about the "surety that the average MCU watcher". I care about the film title making sense within the context of the film of which it presides over. In regards to CM, the film absolutely fails to give meaning to it's title.
"Part 1 Movie"? No such thing. There are films that tell a complete story, and there are films that don't. This one doesn't. Part 1 my ass.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, terrestrial said:
is called in many countries 'the first Avenger' beside being not an Avenger during the first movie
Only 3 countries ran with just "The First Avenger". Those 3 were Russia, Ukraine, and South Korea.
-
5 minutes ago, Mulder said:
You're getting this upset over a character's name come on man. If there's other 'plot holes' actually say them.
I'm expressing disappointment that the film did not justify it's namesake.
Here are some of my other issues, which I stated earlier:
"I have a lot of issues with this film the more I think about it, a lot of things that don't make sense but just happened. This particular issue is emblematic of this film's flaws. What was the point of Ronan? He's dead by the time Carol's in Endgame, is a CM2 going to be pre-Guardians? Why did Starforce just idly stand by and watch as Carol became all powerful at the end? What enabled her to overpower Annette Bening's giant green laser arm hologram thingy? Why did the other pilot's daughter, listed on IMDB as an 11 year old character, know about the entire life story of Carol, who disappeared when the girl would have been 5 years old? How did Carol learn Agent Fury's name and rank instantly, given he never mentioned either of those (I thought that was going to lead into the subplot about her memories, nope)? Did we really need a shoehorned Avengers Initiative tie-in? Too many things in this film happen for the sake of happening, and the MCU tie-ins are very unnatural."
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, Mulder said:
My dude it's not that big of a deal, her name is Captain Marvel because it sounds cool that's about it.
Her name is Carol Danvers. There is no Captain Marvel in this film. At least not one that's given any explanation. "Because it sounds cool and that's about it" is a no-go for me when the MCU has shown better care in the past. Even Will Smith in Suicide Squad justified the film's title better, and that script was much much worse than CM's.
And again, I'm taking up this particular issue because it's IMO representative of similar holes all throughout the script.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:
Wait, wasn't that the whole point of the scene with her and Fury in the kitchen?
I don't remember anything in that scene about Carol accepting the moniker of Marvel as a way to honor her mentor.
What I remember happening in that scene is Fury mixing up Mar-Vell and Marvel, Carol correcting his pronunciation, and Fury talking about how Marvel sounds better.
A wink-nod to the audience, but nothing of character substance. The Carol Danvers of that scene would have nicknamed herself Captain Mar-Vell, if she were to name herself anything at all.
This film is making my head hurt. I wish there was better writing. It feels like this script was chopped up all over the place. Again, makes sense with 5 writers.
-
1 minute ago, Mulder said:
Like most superhero movies? It's a trope for a reason-
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComicBookMoviesDontUseCodenames
I'm not asking them to use code names. I'm asking for the title of the movie to make sense. You don't need to call Steve Rodgers "Captain America" in the film to understand why that is his moniker, and why that's the title of his films.
The title of this movie, "Captain Marvel", literally makes 0% sense within the context of this film. That's all I'm saying.
-
2 minutes ago, Mulder said:
It's her comic name that in the comics she took from being Captain Mar-Vell ((The OG Captain Marvel's)) love interest. Of course now that's not the most empowering so they didn't include that plot point. It's not hard.
MCU films don't get bonus points for hinting at things in the comics without translating the elements to the screen. Find another way to adapt the plot point. They could have easily written a scene about Carol taking on the moniker to honor her mentor. Something about how Mar-Vell's technology resulted in Carol gaining her powers. But zilch. Instead we're left with a film title without a point. That won't bother most people, but it does annoy me.
-
22 minutes ago, Wrath said:
You know that Wonder Woman is always just called “Diana” during that movie, right?
And I have no issue with that. WW was a better film than CM. A character name like that, very self explanatory. She's a woman. She accomplishes wondrous feats.
Maybe Captain Marvel (the character) is supposed to marvel at things? As in respond with amazement and wonder? Because she didn't do that...
-
1
-
3
-
-
40 minutes ago, terrestrial said:
Mar-Vell caused the marvel of Captain 'Avenger' Danvers Marvel
Now you're just making connections that aren't there. Yes, they established there is a character called Mar-Vell. Yes, Fury joked at the end how 'Marvel' sounds better.
At no point did anyone in the film connect the word "Marvel" with the character of Carol Danvers. At no point did she decide to take up Fury''s bastardization of her mentor's name as a moniker. At no point did the film attempt to explain it's namesake. That bothers me.
I have a lot of issues with this film the more I think about it, a lot of things that don't make sense but just happened. This particular issue is emblematic of this film's flaws. What was the point of Ronan? He's dead by the time Carol's in Endgame, is a CM2 going to be pre-Guardians? Why did Starforce just idly stand by and watch as Carol became all powerful at the end? What enabled her to overpower Annette Bening's giant green laser arm hologram thingy? Why did the other pilot's daughter, listed on IMDB as an 11 year old character, know about the entire life story of Carol, who disappeared when the girl would have been 5 years old? How did Carol learn Agent Fury's name and rank instantly, given he never mentioned either of those (I thought that was going to lead into the subplot about her memories, nope)? Did we really need a shoehorned Avengers Initiative tie-in? Too many things in this film happen for the sake of happening, and the MCU tie-ins are very unnatural.
I know I'm nitpicking, but I wouldn't have to if the film had better pacing, unique action, cinematography, or better use of film tropes. I also felt like (outside the Avengers films) this was the most sequel-baity MCU film, with Jude Law's final interactions with Danvers spelling out for the audience what CM2's general premise would be. There's just more to nitpick about this film than I would have liked, I'm not explicitly looking for flaws.
The performances all around were good-to-great, and the electronic music was interesting at times. The brass heavy portions not so much. But the pacing was awful. Film started fast, settles down on Earth, and then grinds to a halt the same way AoU did on the farm, and it felt similar to Ant-Man/Wasp's "Laurence Fishburn explains everything" scene in the middle. Pacing never recovered, because at that point the film had already extinguished the stakes. At this point it was just blowing up pointless space ships, and avoiding a true resolution with Jude Law.
I saw in the credits this film had five writers. It absolutely feels that way.
EDIT: To provide context, I still think this is better than about half a dozen other Marvel films (at least). It's by no means awful. Just disappointing in it's lack of cohesion.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, DeeCee said:
I'm pretty sure she is never actually referred to as Captain Marvel or called Captain Marvel in the film.
The Kree call her Vers because because they only found part of her dogtag. The "Carol Dan...." part stayed on Earth and the "...VERS" part went with her to Hala.
It goes beyond no one calling her Captain Marvel. I'm fine with that, I don't need it to be that explicit. But there is 0% of an explanation as to why this film is called Captain Marvel.
-
1
-
-
Decent film. Brie was very entertaining. Mendelson more so. Very little special about the film, probably won’t rewatch. Too many MCU elements shoehorned in. Poor pacing throughout (so many things happen without buildup or payoff).
Now can someone explain to me where she gets the Captain Marvel moniker from because that’s not explained in the film. Not even close.
-
25 minutes ago, lorddemaxus said:
Kind of unrelated, but I clicked on the link and went to production weekly's website and a 24 jump street is being made by the same director of Spider-verse? I never knew about this.
Would it shock you to learn that the producers/writers of Spider-Verse directed 21 and 22?
-
Just put myself on the Miami waitlist.... anyone know when that screening was announced?
-
As great a fit as Zachary Levi seems for the part, and as much as I love him from NBC’s Chuck, he doesn’t have star power. These low-tier superhero’s need bankable leads to bring in casual audiences.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
Eh. Repeated too many bits from the first trailer. Doesn't give any new story information. There's no pacing, the trailer doesn't build to anything. Just a montage of events. Also odd that they are releasing the second trailer just a month before release. Kind of feels like DC is keeping this low-key.
-
I thought LEGO 2 was very ambitious. Would expect nothing less from a Lord/Miller project. Basically tipples down on the first film's twist. Execution a step down from the first and the LEGO Batman Movie. Over-reliance on singing, including at least 3 more variations of Everything Is Awesome. Humor is on point. Top-notch pop culture comedy.
Feels a lot like Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2. A worthy successor that refuses to settle for less but at the same time doesn't reach the same heights. I enjoyed seeing it, but don't think I'll be repeating it like I do those other two LEGO films (I don't care to see Ninjago)
-
Broly has already earned more than double the lifetime domestic take of Dragonball Evolution.
-
1
-
***SPOILERS***Captain Marvel Spoiler Thread | ***WARNING SPOILERS ALLOWED***WARNING SPOILERS ALLOWED***WARNING SPOILERS ALLOWED***
in Box Office Discussion
Posted
I am an American male, mid 20s, who has spent significant time living overseas.
I fail to see the relevance of that in regards to the title of Captain Marvel making no sense within the context of the film.
What are my contradictory points?