Captain Marvel (aka, the appetizer before Infinity War 2)

[BurdineBandit 813]

On 3/14/2019 at 10:55 AM, ajax said:

I think she's a good actress. She's just horribly miscast. She's not a wisecracking female version of Robert Downey Jr like they make her out to be. She has no comedic instincts. She's not heroic. She does her best work in small independent movies.

Look, it's pretty clear that she's introverted and has to put forth a lot of effort to be in the public eye. Her persona always comes off as strained and put upon.

One of my favorite actresses is almost exactly like Brie Larson - Greta Gerwig, except that Gerwig is an extrovert and likes people. Whereas Brie Larson comes off as scattered and surly, Gerwig is scattered and fun, hence a lot more likable.

You put Larson in a small independent drama and she'll be great, just like she has been in the past.

 

I saw it yesterday. Good movie, I gave it a B+, but I don't think Larson is the character they want her to be. She might be the first actress I've ever seen be likeable and attractive, but not have charisma somehow. She reminds me of Casey Affleck/Colin Farrell bc they get to do the same emotion (none) in all their roles and then get accolades. I can definitely see the introvert point. It was kinda weird that they have her like 4 smirk scenes and those were supposed to be her charismatic moments. A smirk?

Music was cool, surprisingly the only one I felt was gratuitous was Nirvana. I'm a fan of theirs but it didn't seem to be the right scene for that song. I can see where it fits in the grunge-y tone of the movie though (along with the No Doubt, Hole, etc.)

Probably won't see it again, unless I really run out of shit on Netflix.

[ajax 2,591]

19 minutes ago, BurdineBandit said:

She might be the first actress I've ever seen be likeable and attractive, but not have charisma somehow. She reminds me of Casey Affleck/Colin Farrell bc they get to do the same emotion (none) in all their roles and then get accolades

 

[Eskimohorn 5,621]

She reminds me of Casey Affleck/Colin Farrell bc they get to do the same emotion (none) in all their roles and then get accolades. I can definitely see the introvert point. It was kinda weird that they have her like 4 smirk scenes and those were supposed to be her charismatic moments. A smirk?

[Llano Estacado 1,257]

[ajax 2,591]

Have you ever seen Kristen Stewart in anything other than Twilight? Because she's actually really good and has a lot of range. And she's memorable in everything she's in, including the awful Twilight movies.

Brie not so much. I was shocked to learn/remember that Larson was in Kong Skull Island. She had zero impact.

[BERT 4,356]

56 minutes ago, ajax said:

Have you ever seen Kristen Stewart in anything other than Twilight? Because she's actually really good and has a lot of range. And she's memorable in everything she's in, including the awful Twilight movies.

Brie not so much. I was shocked to learn/remember that Larson was in Kong Skull Island. She had zero impact.

You're on drugs

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

Just now, BERT said:

You're on drugs

no, she was great in American Ultra, to name at least one

[BERT 4,356]

1 minute ago, SwanderedTalent said:

no, she was great in American Ultra, to name at least one

You can't make me like her!!

[Drew 2,335]

She has been in some good movie outside of Twilight.  Not going to say she's a great actress, but she's not a bad one either.

[mdmost 42,879]

1 hour ago, ajax said:

Have you ever seen Kristen Stewart in anything other than Twilight? Because she's actually really good and has a lot of range. And she's memorable in everything she's in, including the awful Twilight movies.

Brie not so much. I was shocked to learn/remember that Larson was in Kong Skull Island. She had zero impact.

I mean she was kind of memorable to the Academy when they gave her that Oscar for Room. 

In other news, this should break 1 billion worldwide today. 

[Patrick Bateman 3,903]

1 hour ago, ajax said:

Have you ever seen Kristen Stewart in anything other than Twilight? Because she's actually really good and has a lot of range. And she's memorable in everything she's in, including the awful Twilight movies.

Brie not so much. I was shocked to learn/remember that Larson was in Kong Skull Island. She had zero impact.

Disagree.  Stewart definitely has a fit role in which she shines but she was miscast in the Snow White movie, wasn't great in On the Road, decent in the Runaways.  I give her credit because she does do some interesting work and isn't afraid to take a chance, but definitely has a wheelhouse.

 

[ajax 2,591]

37 minutes ago, mdmost said:

I mean she was kind of memorable to the Academy when they gave her that Oscar for Room. 

Did you see it? Would you recommend it?

Stewart was great in Into the Wild, Runaways and Personal Shopper. I know shaggy/surly doesn't like Kristen Stewart but I really like her. I think she has a lot of magnetism and charisma, albeit in her own way.

[gsoda3 3,238]

 

On 3/13/2019 at 4:43 PM, Disco Missile said:

I like almost all of those songs but they felt out of place.

Cult's "Fire Woman" or "Sanctuary" would've worked and checked the grrl power box. Fighting to Nirvana unironically? Ehhh

 

maybe it's because i'm too familiar with them and they mean different things to me personally, but i found the timing of the songs to be off.  as if they shoehorned them in to the movie.  

 

On 3/14/2019 at 10:24 AM, Dutchrudder said:

This interview makes me hate her. I mean i thought the "wooden" criticisms were a bit over the top, but jesus christ she has all the personality of a raw potato. She feels like someone who would have been a good secondary character in The Office, because she reminds me of Erin without the happiness. 

 

brie larson comes off as completely unlikable in her interviews and it came across the same way on screen.  i wish they'd cast someone different.  she looks like pam beasley and carrie underwood's stepsister but has the emotional accessibility of don draper.

 

also as a parent of a child the same age as monica, her mom leaving to co-pilot that crazy DIY spacecraft was a huge eye-roll moment.

 

other than that the movie was enjoyable.  

[TrashMaster G 17,400]

On 3/30/2019 at 1:29 PM, South Austin said:

Saw it last night with my son. Enjoyable, but I’d put it at the bottom half of the Marvel flicks. As others have noted, Larsen’s acting was overall pretty flat, but I liked the Nick Fury back story and 90s soundtrack. Looking forward to Endgame and the new Spider-Man movie.

This is pretty much where I am, with a slightly higher opinion of Larsen's performance.

I will admit there is a possibility that the time she spent wearing tight outfits with her back to the camera may have affected my opinion somewhat.

[Kermit 3,132]

On 4/1/2019 at 5:57 PM, ajax said:

Did you see it? Would you recommend it?

Yes, and yes. 

[Daichee Bell 2,925]

Just saw it.  Probably my least favorite Marvel movie, that I can think of.  Nothing really memorable.  The music was good, but No Doubt and Nirvana seemed jammed in somehow.

Weird thing to me - Seems like every scene in which Brie was walking, she had her hands clenched and acting bowed up.  Fucking relax for a sec.  

She's not terrible, but the jokes didn't work at all.  I think the script was worse than her acting.  You're pissed that the Kree took you away from earth for 6 years.  So you get back, and then immediately leave for another 20?  

Sweet NIN shirt though. Loved looking at the logo. 

Edited April 4, 2019 by Daichee Bell

[Bateshorn 9,908]

Saw it friday.  It was solid, and I enjoyed it on the big screen. I think the script was the problem, not Larson.  The buddy cop vibe didn't work for me. I'd put it in the middle tier of the Marvel flicks.  I'll probably watch it again when it comes out streaming, so it's better than say, Hulk/IM2/Thor2/Ultron, but I'm not going to obsess over it like Winter Soldier.

I was COMPLETELY put off though by using a Hole song from Celebrity Skin instead of Live through This.  The timing on that really irritated me.

[CooterBrown 17,944]

2 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

I was COMPLETELY put off though by using a Hole song from Celebrity Skin instead of Live through This.  The timing on that really irritated me.

Me too. It's was a mid 90s soundtrack picked by someone who wasn't old enough to be into music in the mid 90s.

 

[MissingInAction 24,865]

18 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

Me too. It's was a mid 90s soundtrack picked by someone who wasn't old enough to be into music in the mid 90s.

 

Pretty sure they just entered "Mid 90s rock" into Pandora, and went with that. 

[henrygandorf 29,183]

ok, so a month later, and i finally saw this tonight.  kept seeing this thread grow, and was very excited to come back and read it.  what a fucking beating the last 6 pages are, not that i was expecting any different.

thought it was fine.  about how i expected.  i typically love origin stories, but this one was structured differently - and that's a plot/writing issue, not a casting issue.  i'm not saying a different unveiling of the character transformation would've blown me away, but maybe it would've distracted from some of brie's obvious acting flaws in this type of role.  i mean, when she lands on earth, she's this smug badass (with the acting range of the terminator or another robot type).  we never actually see her as carol danvers, human, woman, aspiring fighter pilot.  

she had these memory flashes - that seemed realistic.  and she kept blaming them on some technique where, what, the bad guys inject false memories to confuse you?  is that a thing?  they were obviously looking for something from her past, so why was she so convinced the memories were fake?  did she have other memories of whatever happened before 6 years ago?  i would've been fine if they rearranged the movie starting with the air force, the struggle to get meaningful missions, then the crash and jude law taking her.  she has amnesia, and maybe they tell her some cover story, and she does her best to deal with it.  maybe that would've made more sense from a linear narrative perspective. 

dropping us into the jude law bonding/training was uncomfortable, and made it obvious he was the likely main baddie.  but in that initial scene, she already had a very powerful ability, and didn't quite know how to control it.  kinda buried the lead for me.  shit, this almost seemed more like an origin story for fury, and i'm ok with that.

and yeah, the jokes weren't great, but she's not good at them regardless. 

so here's my question for the nerds - how come in iron man (still the best marvel movie), coulson introduces himself to pepper as the head of the strategic homeland initiative blah blah, and she's like, you guys need an acronym, and he's like, yeah, i know, we're working on it.  later in the movie, he just says, "shield" and hands her his card.  that was 2008.  so how come in 1995, fury introduces himself as an "agent of shield"?  i'm not one to pick on things like that, but it kinda bugged me for a movie intent on keeping consistency, dropping in easter eggs, rewarding the hardcore fans.  (there could be an easy answer that i totally missed, but i can't think of it). 

i'm now ready for endgame.  let's do this.

[TexLonghorn 5,598]

2 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

so how come in 1995, fury introduces himself as an "agent of shield"? 

The SHIELD name had been in use long before the 90's, but it wasn't well-known publicly before the Avengers stuff, and that makes all the difference.

In Winter Soldier, computer-Armin Zola tells Captain America and Black Widow that SHIELD was founded and had recruited him right after WWII - he doesn't use the full words, he actually says "SHIELD".  Although it could have come later, it implies the name was used even back then, as it's shown on his security clearance document.  Zola transferred his brain into the computer in the 70's, so at the least, it would mean the Shield name would have to have been in use before that (again, it's written on Zola's identity document).  But Zola was an "in".  He was recruited by SHIELD and would know what it stands for, so he uses the shortened name.

Coulson uses the full words when he introduces himself to Pepper because he is assuming that she has never heard of the organization, much less by its acronym SHIELD - and she actually hadn't at that time, so he's right.  She says they should shorten it, and Coulson says they are working on it, though he knows they already have a shortened version, he's just polite enough not to dismiss her suggestion.  Plus, at this point, she is still an untested ally.  By the end of the movie, she's an "in," too - she's worked with the agency by that point and Coulson expects that they will work together again, so when she starts going into the full words of the agency, he lets her in to just calling it SHIELD. 

Fury not using the full words is probably more just a personality thing. He might assume that Captain Marvel is an "in" because of what he was briefed on before they arrived to meet her (or maybe thinks she would know what SHIELD is based on her actions), but it's probably more that he just doesn't have the politeness that Coulson has (i.e. Fury doesn't care if she knows what SHIELD is or not), and instead prefers the time-saving use of just "SHIELD".  Introducing himself that way also puts Fury in a power position - if someone doesn't know what SHIELD is, then there is the conclusion that Fury either has more knowledge or more clearance - and Fury would happily put himself in either of those categories. 

So ultimately, long explanation, but it's probably just that Coulson and Fury introduce themselves differently from each other, or differently depending on who they are talking to.

Edited April 10, 2019 by TexLonghorn

[mulletpelini 5,210]

On 4/1/2019 at 3:39 PM, ajax said:

Brie not so much. I was shocked to learn/remember that Larson was in Kong Skull Island. She had zero impact.

Everything this guy just said is bullshit.

She had 2 huge impacts

[Huckleberry 32,711]

so here's my question for the nerds -

 

I'm not sure if we have any of those hardcore nerd types here.

 

The SHIELD name had been in use long before the 90's, but it wasn't well-known publicly before the Avengers stuff, and that makes all the difference.

In Winter Soldier, computer-Armin Zola tells Captain America and Black Widow that SHIELD was founded and had recruited him right after WWII - he doesn't use the full words, he actually says "SHIELD".  Although it could have come later, it implies the name was used even back then, as it's shown on his security clearance document.  Zola transferred his brain into the computer in the 70's, so at the least, it would mean the Shield name would have to have been in use before that (again, it's written on Zola's identity document).  But Zola was an "in".  He was recruited by SHIELD and would know what it stands for, so he uses the shortened name.

Coulson uses the full words when he introduces himself to Pepper because he is assuming that she has never heard of the organization, much less by its acronym SHIELD - and she actually hadn't at that time, so he's right.  She says they should shorten it, and Coulson says they are working on it, though he knows they already have a shortened version, he's just polite enough not to dismiss her suggestion.  Plus, at this point, she is still an untested ally.  By the end of the movie, she's an "in," too - she's worked with the agency by that point and Coulson expects that they will work together again, so when she starts going into the full words of the agency, he lets her in to just calling it SHIELD. 

Fury not using the full words is probably more just a personality thing. He might assume that Captain Marvel is an "in" because of what he was briefed on before they arrived to meet her (or maybe thinks she would know what SHIELD is based on her actions), but it's probably more that he just doesn't have the politeness that Coulson has (i.e. Fury doesn't care if she knows what SHIELD is or not), and instead prefers the time-saving use of just "SHIELD".  Introducing himself that way also puts Fury in a power position - if someone doesn't know what SHIELD is, then there is the conclusion that Fury either has more knowledge or more clearance - and Fury would happily put himself in either of those categories. 

So ultimately, long explanation, but it's probably just that Coulson and Fury introduce themselves differently from each other, or differently depending on who they are talking to.

 

Scratch that. Forget I said anything.

 

 

[Viper 12,034]

So was this a continuity error or a hint of future story lines?

 

Captain Marvel

 

 

Avengers Age of Ultron

[mdmost 42,879]

Maybe he's a Skrull.

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

47 minutes ago, mdmost said:

Maybe he's a Skrull.

Or Captain Marvel took place in an alternate universe.  

[mdmost 42,879]

Actually, I saw an interesting theory that Endgame might be the vehicle to allow Marvel Studios to retcon everything now that Disney owns the Fox properties. A way to tie the multiverses all together through the Quantum Realm and the stones. 

[henrygandorf 29,183]

7 hours ago, TexLonghorn said:

The SHIELD name had been in use long before the 90's, but it wasn't well-known publicly before the Avengers stuff, and that makes all the difference.

In Winter Soldier, computer-Armin Zola tells Captain America and Black Widow that SHIELD was founded and had recruited him right after WWII - he doesn't use the full words, he actually says "SHIELD".  Although it could have come later, it implies the name was used even back then, as it's shown on his security clearance document.  Zola transferred his brain into the computer in the 70's, so at the least, it would mean the Shield name would have to have been in use before that (again, it's written on Zola's identity document).  But Zola was an "in".  He was recruited by SHIELD and would know what it stands for, so he uses the shortened name.

Coulson uses the full words when he introduces himself to Pepper because he is assuming that she has never heard of the organization, much less by its acronym SHIELD - and she actually hadn't at that time, so he's right.  She says they should shorten it, and Coulson says they are working on it, though he knows they already have a shortened version, he's just polite enough not to dismiss her suggestion.  Plus, at this point, she is still an untested ally.  By the end of the movie, she's an "in," too - she's worked with the agency by that point and Coulson expects that they will work together again, so when she starts going into the full words of the agency, he lets her in to just calling it SHIELD. 

Fury not using the full words is probably more just a personality thing. He might assume that Captain Marvel is an "in" because of what he was briefed on before they arrived to meet her (and maybe thinks she would know what SHIELD is), but it's probably more that he just doesn't have the politeness that Coulson has (i.e. Fury doesn't care if she knows what SHIELD is or not), and instead prefers the time-saving use of just SHIELD.  Introducing himself that way also puts Fury in a power position - if someone doesn't know what SHIELD is, then there is the conclusion that Fury either has more knowledge or more clearance - and Fury would happily put himself in either of those categories. 

So ultimately, long explanation, but it's probably just that Coulson and Fury introduce themselves differently from each other, or differently depending on who they are talking to.

thanks for the reply.  i think it's certainly possible that your explanation is true.  i think it's more probable that they were trying to introduce the idea (to the public) of shield in iron man 1, regardless of when it was actually introduced in the timeline of the comics, or even the timeline of the eventual mcu as seen in the future movies.

i think at the time iron man was written/produced, they didn't know the full scope of what would be happening down the road.  if it bombed, we never would've gone down the avengers path to begin with.  i think what you wrote could be more of a revisionist's history explanation - one that is possibly even consistent with what marvel execs would suggest as well.

personally, i think it was written as a humorous way to present shield, and also poke fun at the various acronyms that govt agencies assign themselves to.

[ajax 2,591]

Has anyone see Unicorn Store? I wouldn't say it's great, or even good, but Larson is much better in that than Captain Marvel. It wasn't boring. It's much more suited to her acting style.

[Pato del Muerto 52,369]

1 hour ago, ajax said:

Has anyone see Unicorn Store? I wouldn't say it's great, or even good, but Larson is much better in that than Captain Marvel. It wasn't boring. It's much more suited to her acting style.

That’s a Netflix original btw

[TexLonghorn 5,598]

3 hours ago, henrygandorf said:

thanks for the reply.  i think it's certainly possible that your explanation is true.  i think it's more probable that they were trying to introduce the idea (to the public) of shield in iron man 1, regardless of when it was actually introduced in the timeline of the comics, or even the timeline of the eventual mcu as seen in the future movies.

Yeah, this is really the reply - Marvel didn't think the viewing public would know what SHIELD is, or if they did, they'd get the in joke of "we're working on it".  But from a story perspective, the movie continuity comes from Fury and Coulson just having different personalities.

[TexLonghorn 5,598]

 

7 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

I'm not sure if we have any of those hardcore nerd types here.

[freyguy 4,245]

14 hours ago, mulletpelini said:

 

Wait, what were we talking about?

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

14 hours ago, freyguy said:

Wait, what were we talking about?

Tits.

[TrashMaster G 17,400]

14 hours ago, freyguy said:

Wait, what were we talking about?

[Buzzrock 14,881]

Figured I had to see it before Endgame. It was OK. First act was pretty good, second act dragged, third act was OK. Stan Lee montage at the front really got me.

Larson is just not very likable for some reason. Not very charismatic.

[Tom 2,959]

On 4/1/2019 at 3:39 PM, ajax said:

Have you ever seen Kristen Stewart in anything other than Twilight? Because she's actually really good and has a lot of range. And she's memorable in everything she's in, including the awful Twilight movies.

Brie not so much. I was shocked to learn/remember that Larson was in Kong Skull Island. She had zero impact.

 

On 4/1/2019 at 5:19 PM, Patrick Bateman said:

Disagree.  Stewart definitely has a fit role in which she shines but she was miscast in the Snow White movie, wasn't great in On the Road, decent in the Runaways.  I give her credit because she does do some interesting work and isn't afraid to take a chance, but definitely has a wheelhouse.

 

 

Kristen Stewart was great at playing Jodie Foster's son in Panic Room.

Honestly I don't really have a problem with either actress.  Brie Larson was fine in Captain Marvel.  She was not what plagued the film.  Writing and corny CGI scenes stopped it from being a top tier Marvel movie.

[utee94 15,747]

2 hours ago, Tom said:

 

 

Kristen Stewart was great at playing Jodie Foster's son in Panic Room.

Honestly I don't really have a problem with either actress.  Brie Larson was fine in Captain Marvel.  She was not what plagued the film.  Writing and corny CGI scenes stopped it from being a top tier Marvel movie.

Agree, Brie Larson didn't bother me.  The script and overall feel of the movie just left me with the impression that the whole thing was rushed to market.  I've already stated I enjoyed the movie but I do think it could have been a lot better. 

[mdmost 42,879]

ajax?

Quote

Wisconsin Man Sees ‘Captain Marvel’ 116 Times, Which Is Obviously a World Record

How many times will he endure "Avengers: Endgame"?

Michael Nordine

Apr 21, 2019 12:11 pm

 @slowbeard

“Captain Marvel” has made more than $1 billion worldwide, and one man can lay claim to contributing more to that box-office haul than anyone else in the world: Steve Ruppel of Wisconsin. After setting a Guinness World Record by seeing Brie Larson’s superhero drama 104 times at the Marcus Cedar Creek Cinema in Rothschild 104 times, the apparent super fan went back 12 more times for good measure.

“I thought it was the most insane thing ever, I thought it was impossible,” Ruppel told local news station WSAW of his feat. “I wasn’t even sure why it was even a record, but I thought after a while ‘I should probably do that.'”

If you’re wondering whether he has a job, the answer is yes. If you’re wondering whether spending 242 hours in a movie theater over the last month or so made that job difficult, the answer is also yes. “The amount of time that it takes, I’ve had to take time off work, I would take long lunch breaks to accommodate watching an entire movie in that particular time frame,” said Ruppel. “And then just time on the weekends where I’m not doing other things.” He once saw the film seven times in a single day, preventing boredom by zeroing in on specific details while rewatching it.

 

Guinness didn’t just take his word for it, of course. “To be official, I have to have certain pictures taken, like in front of a movie poster, and I need to have two written witness statements saying that I was actually there,” he said. “So I’m trying to think, if anyone wanted to break this, I really don’t want to re-break it. Cause this has been pretty tough. It’s been a finite amount of time, but I don’t think I’m going to try this one again.”

“Captain Marvel” is no longer playing at Ruppel’s preferred movie theater, meaning his record is likely to stand at 116 viewings. The highly anticipated “Avengers: Endgame” arrives in theaters next week, however, meaning he could feasibly best himself — though, at three hours long, that film will be even more difficult to see multiple times.

 

[Fozzz 152]

I'm just gonna put this here.  

 

 

[ajax 2,591]

10 minutes ago, mdmost said:

ajax?

 

I gotta support my girl Brie. I luv her so much...

[Kermit 3,132]

28 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I'm just gonna put this here.  

 

 

Bitch, close toed shoes are your friends. Goddamn that’s terrifying.

[Js1 85,156]

Even Rex Ryan ain't interested. 

[smuggs 9,342]

[maninblack 7,974]

Is that real?!?!

[utee94 15,747]

She has feet?  Who knew?

[ajax 2,591]

If anyone's interested, Emma Watson has really nice feet. Not that I'm into feet or anything like that.

[Fozzz 152]

That's gross, ajax.  

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

47 minutes ago, ajax said:

If anyone's interested, Emma Watson has really nice feet. Not that I'm into feet or anything like that.

she pees real nice too

[ajax 2,591]

37 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

That's gross, ajax.  

Hey Fozzz....

19 minutes ago, SwanderedTalent said:

she pees real nice too