Originally Posted by Fish:
Not entirely sure, but that's definitely how it looks at this point. The credits scene from Infinity War was Fury sending a distress call to Ms. Marvel. And Feige has repeatedly said he's making her the strongest Avenger to date.
Warlock isn't/wasn't an Avenger. Unless I'm wrong on that? [Reply]
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
Warlock isn't/wasn't an Avenger. Unless I'm wrong on that?
Wasn't an Avenger, but was part of the Guardians of the Galaxy. He's got a really weird history. Even teamed up with Thanos in the comics at one point, to battle a big bad guy. Owned the soul stone for a long time. Which drove him psychotic. And then his evil psychosis became its own physical entity and turned into a villian. He accidentally destroyed the entire universe at one point too. [Reply]
It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't such a blatant Girl Power "Get more females to watch comic book movies" schtick. They're making Ms. Marvel into something she never was, and it feels like they're doing it just for SJW reasons. While seemingly eliminating one of the most powerful heroes ever in Warlock, who is 100 times more interesting of a character than Danvers. It doesn't make sense. Hell even Thor is exponentially more powerful than Ms. Marvel.
Whatever... I just hope Warlock has some kind of future in the MCU, since they already teased it... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't such a blatant Girl Power "Get more females to watch comic book movies" schtick. They're making Ms. Marvel into something she never was, and it feels like they're doing it just for SJW reasons. While seemingly eliminating one of the most powerful heroes ever in Warlock, who is 100 times more interesting of a character than Danvers. It doesn't make sense. Hell even Thor is exponentially more powerful than Ms. Marvel.
Whatever... I just hope Warlock has some kind of future in the MCU, since they already teased it...
I say this not to trigger a political conversation, but to prepare people who might not have heard. Feige has made it clear, though not in so many words, that meddling with the characters and stories for political reasons is the plan for the future. The female/gay/tranny/etc... stuff is going to be ramped up moving forward. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
I say this not to trigger a political conversation, but to prepare people who might not have heard. Feige has made it clear, though not in so many words, that meddling with the characters and stories for political reasons is the plan for the future. The female/gay/tranny/etc... stuff is going to be ramped up moving forward.
Did they miss that staying out of that crap and just serving up the, mostly, classic heroes everyone remembers and loves is the recipe for HUGE MOUNTAINS OF CASH? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
I say this not to trigger a political conversation, but to prepare people who might not have heard. Feige has made it clear, though not in so many words, that meddling with the characters and stories for political reasons is the plan for the future. The female/gay/tranny/etc... stuff is going to be ramped up moving forward.
That makes a lot of sense knowing they are going to bring the x-men under the umbrella finally. To show character depth within an x-men film pretty much means you are going to have parallels between social rights movement, sexual and gender persecution, and tyrannical governments. It was always there before, but most readers apparently couldn't read between the lines or just didn't want to? [Reply]
Originally Posted by bowener:
That makes a lot of sense knowing they are going to bring the x-men under the umbrella finally. To show character depth within an x-men film pretty much means you are going to have parallels between social rights movement, sexual and gender persecution, and tyrannical governments. It was always there before, but most readers apparently couldn't read between the lines or just didn't want to?
There's a difference between subtle commentary and kicking someone in the balls. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
I say this not to trigger a political conversation, but to prepare people who might not have heard. Feige has made it clear, though not in so many words, that meddling with the characters and stories for political reasons is the plan for the future. The female/gay/tranny/etc... stuff is going to be ramped up moving forward.
Wait for the Muslim versions Coming To A Theatre Near You... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't such a blatant Girl Power "Get more females to watch comic book movies" schtick. They're making Ms. Marvel into something she never was, and it feels like they're doing it just for SJW reasons. While seemingly eliminating one of the most powerful heroes ever in Warlock, who is 100 times more interesting of a character than Danvers. It doesn't make sense. Hell even Thor is exponentially more powerful than Ms. Marvel.
Whatever... I just hope Warlock has some kind of future in the MCU, since they already teased it...
I don't know, man ... there have been some very good sci-fi films that featured female leads. You know which ones.
Originally Posted by Fish:
It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't such a blatant Girl Power "Get more females to watch comic book movies" schtick. They're making Ms. Marvel into something she never was, and it feels like they're doing it just for SJW reasons.
They did this 10 years ago in the comix.
She is THE SJW/Feminist Marvel character. It's all she's about in the comix for a decade now.
It would be like hiring David Duke to voice Kermit the Frog and then acting all shocked when he suddenly talks about wanting to lynch all the blue Muppets... [Reply]
Not a big fan of women superheros being the main feat character. Wonder Woman was meh...I saw it more due to the fact that Gal Gadot is a fuckin babe.
The only way a Black Widow movie would be cool is if they made it R rated and made it dark as fuck...and mult scenes where ScarJo gets naked. BUT...that would never happen so fuck it. [Reply]