Originally Posted by Direckshun:
Again, the length of her existence is not the point I'm making. Ant Man's been around since the 40s or whatever but apparently you had no problem with that comparison.
The point I'm making is that she does have a fanbase. She is currently a B level player, and who knows if that's where she'll always be. Iron Man was a B level player the Marvel universe for a fair amount of time. Some people thought Marvel was desperate for making an Iron Man film. But then RDJ signed on and the film ****ing destroyed.
I would say Antman probably has more of a following than Captain Marvel. There's nothing wrong with introducing new characters. Especially if they are really good characters. They will become popular. But you are just spouting off about shit you know absolutely nothing about and acting like a ****ing authority on the subject.
\And if you considered Ironman a B level character, which was only in comparison to Spiderman and X-Men, btw, Captain Marvel probably would come in at a D or F level. That's not saying she is a bad character, that is totally debatable. It's just putting her popularity in relation to pre-RDJ Ironman. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
That's fine, that's all fine.
But the idea that she's never had a following is just something someone says when they have no idea what they're talking about.
That's all fine. You can argue about her popularity or whatever. But she has had a dedicated following. You said that she did not. I assume in part because you don't know what you're talking about, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just say you misspoke.
I don't know of an army of supporters, however big or small, for Hank Pym.
She's been a B-level character for Marvel for a long time. For that matter, so was Iron Man -- he wasn't like a supremely popular character on the same level as Superman or Hulk until the MCU showed up and knocked it out of the park with his first movie.
It's hard to remember that because Stark's a really great character, but really great characters don't always explode with popularity. The same could be said for Danvers.
I don't find this relative to my point. Is it relative to my point?
If you actually had a point, it would be relevant to it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
That's all fine. You can argue about her popularity or whatever. But she has had a dedicated following. You said that she did not. I assume in part because you don't know what you're talking about, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and just say you misspoke.
I don't know of an army of supporters, however big or small, for Hank Pym.
She's been a B-level character for Marvel for a long time. For that matter, so was Iron Man -- he wasn't like a supremely popular character on the same level as Superman or Hulk until the MCU showed up and knocked it out of the park with his first movie.
It's hard to remember that because Stark's a really great character, but really great characters don't always explode with popularity. The same could be said for Danvers.
A) I don't really know what I'm talking about. I had comics in the early 90s; had my favorites for 5-6 years and then found other stuff to do. I'm not a hardcore comic fan. That said, I did also speak inartfully when I said she doesn't have a following 'to speak of'. Meaning mostly that I meant it in relative terms. If that wasn't clear, it probably could've been.
Now B) Precisely because of the the above, I can say that your Iron Man comparison is a pretty bad one. I absolutely knew who Iron man was. He was a pretty top end character, especially as a solo shop rather than an ensemble. I had no earthly idea who Captain Marvel was.
Id' say I'm pretty precisely the dividing line in identifying a 'fringe character' vs a fairly major one. I knew of any/all major comic book characters to be part of major motion pictures up until Ant Man (wait...maybe Guardians; did they come before Ant-man? Whatever).
I suspect I'm not alone here and my point is precisely to point out that this idea that we're supposed to be galled if people don't flock to see a movie just because a B level Marvel figure is helming it is silly. Ant Man was projected to open at $60 million. This movie's projected at 2-3 times that despite the fact that the main character is of similar repute among the population writ large (which is to say, no cultural cache among the general populace at all).
This is a throwaway property being propped up precisely because Marvel wants a strong female lead. Alright, fine - do that. It makes business sense. But don't expect me to care. If the movies good, I'll see it - Ant Man was awesome and more critically it was a needed infusion of light fare in an increasingly heavy MCU. You can argue that a female lead is needed in an increasingly male MCU as well - again, that's fine. But the movie had better be good on its own merits. [Reply]
I think your source is incredibly biased. The Carol Danvers version of Captain Marvel has only been around for ~6 years. She's not even the most famous Captain Marvel. Danvers spent much more time as Ms. Marvel. She also held several other superhero names as well(Binary, Warbird). I never found her very interesting in the comics... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Beef Supreme:
I would say Antman probably has more of a following than Captain Marvel. There's nothing wrong with introducing new characters. Especially if they are really good characters. They will become popular. But you are just spouting off about shit you know absolutely nothing about and acting like a ****ing authority on the subject.
\And if you considered Ironman a B level character, which was only in comparison to Spiderman and X-Men, btw, Captain Marvel probably would come in at a D or F level. That's not saying she is a bad character, that is totally debatable. It's just putting her popularity in relation to pre-RDJ Ironman.
If Ant-Man has a following more prominent than the Carol Corps, I've completely missed it. Seriously. Ant-Man has been around for decades but I've never known him as anything other than a bit player in the comics and nonexistent in popular culture. What are you basing that off of?
Iron Man is an A level character now, but he was relatively obscure in the 90s. That's of course not to bash the character at all, and I'm not alone in that assessment.
Originally Posted by Just Passin' By:
If you actually had a point, it would be relevant to it.
My point was that she has a following, and anybody claiming otherwise is wrong.
Didn't think that was a complicated issue.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Now B) Precisely because of the the above, I can say that your Iron Man comparison is a pretty bad one. I absolutely knew who Iron man was. He was a pretty top end character, especially as a solo shop rather than an ensemble. I had no earthly idea who Captain Marvel was.
Id' say I'm pretty precisely the dividing line in identifying a 'fringe character' vs a fairly major one. I knew of any/all major comic book characters to be part of major motion pictures up until Ant Man (wait...maybe Guardians; did they come before Ant-man? Whatever).
I suspect I'm not alone here and my point is precisely to point out that this idea that we're supposed to be galled if people don't flock to see a movie just because a B level Marvel figure is helming it is silly. Ant Man was projected to open at $60 million. This movie's projected at 2-3 times that despite the fact that the main character is of similar repute among the population writ large (which is to say, no cultural cache among the general populace at all).
This is a throwaway property being propped up precisely because Marvel wants a strong female lead. Alright, fine - do that. It makes business sense. But don't expect me to care. If the movies good, I'll see it - Ant Man was awesome and more critically it was a needed infusion of light fare in an increasingly heavy MCU. You can argue that a female lead is needed in an increasingly male MCU as well - again, that's fine. But the movie had better be good on its own merits.
I disagree with parts in here but it's all fine. The last paragraph is a bit off, though. With Chris Evans and RDJ fading into the background, you can expect Captain Marvel and Spider-Man to lead the way forward in the MCU until the X-men inevitably arrive. This is not a throwaway, it's a new normal.
Captain Marvel will probably do well at the box office, which means we'll see a CM2, and prominent roles in Avengers films.
And I agree -- I need it to be a good movie to enjoy myself, too. But Captain America 1 was hardly great, and he went on to have a couple of the best MCU movies ever after that, so let's not pretend like the future of MCU Female Leads depends on this one being excellent. (Not that you're making that argument.)
Originally Posted by Fish:
I think your source is incredibly biased. The Carol Danvers version of Captain Marvel has only been around for ~6 years. She's not even the most famous Captain Marvel. Danvers spent much more time as Ms. Marvel. She also held several other superhero names as well(Binary, Warbird). I never found her very interesting in the comics...
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
My point was that she has a following, and anybody claiming otherwise is wrong.
Didn't think that was a complicated issue.
Your 'point' is pointless. Even things that are the biggest piles of shit in their categories have followings. Without discussing the size of the followings, the enthusiasm of the followings, the reasons behind the followings, etc..., you're not doing anything but talking out of your ass. [Reply]
I'm ready for this movie to be out so we can stop discussing Brie Larson's ass and whether Captain Marvel is equivalent to Iron Man or Ant Man and actually start talking about whether the movie sucks. :-) [Reply]
Fishpicker 03-07-2019, 04:51 PM
This message has been deleted by Fishpicker.
Reason: meh
Originally Posted by Direckshun:
If Ant-Man has a following more prominent than the Carol Corps, I've completely missed it. Seriously. Ant-Man has been around for decades but I've never known him as anything other than a bit player in the comics and nonexistent in popular culture. What are you basing that off of?
Iron Man is an A level character now, but he was relatively obscure in the 90s. That's of course not to bash the character at all, and I'm not alone in that assessment.
My point was that she has a following, and anybody claiming otherwise is wrong.
Didn't think that was a complicated issue.
I disagree with parts in here but it's all fine. The last paragraph is a bit off, though. With Chris Evans and RDJ fading into the background, you can expect Captain Marvel and Spider-Man to lead the way forward in the MCU until the X-men inevitably arrive. This is not a throwaway, it's a new normal.
Captain Marvel will probably do well at the box office, which means we'll see a CM2, and prominent roles in Avengers films.
And I agree -- I need it to be a good movie to enjoy myself, too. But Captain America 1 was hardly great, and he went on to have a couple of the best MCU movies ever after that, so let's not pretend like the future of MCU Female Leads depends on this one being excellent. (Not that you're making that argument.)
Ironman has never been an obscure character. He has always been a member/leader of the Avengers and pretty much always had a solo book on top of that. These were not obscure. They almost always sold well. When people called him a B-level character, they were comparing him to the popularity of Spiderman and the X-men which were wildly popular and had many many simultaneous comic book titles and many reboots in television and film because of that popularity. And Ironman was barely behind that mass popularity. To try and claim Captain Marvel has ever been on the same level of recognizability or popularity as Ironman is ****ing dumbfounding.
Ant Man might be a more apt comparison, but he was also a member of the avengers, and the avengers are not some scrub unknown group. And during the 90's comic resurgence, had a solo book that did pretty well. He was also known from a few Saturday morning Avengers cartoon series. Also went by the name Yellowjacket for a while. It's at least in the ballpark with Captain Marvel recognizability and popularity. In my opinion, more so, but, It's not a hill I'm prepared to die on. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rausch:
The problem is when those opinions get shoved into the movies they make and ruin them. This was a normal female comix character until the SJW's changed her and made her their poster-girl for femi-nazis.
Except she was always an explicitly feminist character. That's why she was Ms. Marvel. [Reply]
If you’re wondering why exactly so many women are comfortable making this movie (and this character in general) a feminist riot grrrrl anthem, it’s because of the comments flooding this benign Marvel ad on Facebook.
Captain Marvel has several elements to her appeal, but one clear cultural one is that she is a wholesale rejection of Men’s Rights activism. And you can tell that from the comments here. [Reply]
