Welcome to unstablemolecules.com, the discussion home for mightyavengers.net, uncanon.com and uncannyxmen.net!

Captain Marvel

Did you see the Dr. Strange Movie from the 70's? Me neither, but I'm sure someone did. Come here to talk about Movies and TV
User avatar
Nu-D
Posts: 2463
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 00:22
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Nu-D » 06 Dec 2018, 18:56

Strength:

OG Carol = CC Rogue < Juggernaut </= Hulk

User avatar
Anna Raven
Posts: 4211
Joined: 28 Jun 2007, 22:53

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Anna Raven » 06 Dec 2018, 18:58

Nu-D wrote:
06 Dec 2018, 17:04
When (mostly white) people complain that inadvertent racial discrimination should not be called “racism,” they’re looking at the question through the lens of the moral culpability of the actor. It is correct, in my opinion, that the moral culpability of a bigot is different from that of the aforementioned hiring manager.

However, when POC use the word “racist” to describe both kinds of actions, they’re focused less on the moral culpability and more on the nature of the harm. The discriminatory impact of the bigot’s decision only to interview white candidates, and the un-bigoted by oblivious decision only to advertise the job to white people, results in the same harm: fewer job opportunities for POC. Because the harms are the same regardless of their actor’s intent, the action can fairly be called “racist.”

In the law, we have long recognized that moral culpability is a function of both the nature of the harm, and the intent of the actor. This is why we have First and Second degree murder, as well as voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. In all four crimes, the harm caused is a death. But the culpability is mitigated or aggravated depending on the intention of the actor. It is also why an intentional gunshot that results in death is charged as murder, whereas one that does not kill the victim is charged as a form of assault. There, the same act with the same intent resulted in different harms, and so culpability is varied. Further, it is why insanity and accident are complete defenses to criminal liability; because if you did not intend even the action, then the consequences are not your fault. (I won’t get into general and specific intent and all that, but there’s a lot more to say here).

Anyhow, this is why I do support a shift in language, to terms that capture both dimensions of harm and intent when discussion race in America. I think we need a morally neutral terminology to discuss the discriminatory harms that are occurring, regardless of the intention of the actor. In many of our discussions, what the actors intend is irrelevant; we want to fix the problem not focus on pointing fingers. Alternately, we need a language that discusses moral culpability for racial inequality with appropriate precision and subtlety, so that it recognizes that Storm Thurmond is not the same as Bill Clinton, even though both had a hand in the tough-on-crime policies that have torn through the black communities in America.

For these reasons, I prefer discussing “bigotry” when speaking of the moral culpability of a person intentionally hostile or indifferent to the suffering of racial minorities (I also like it because it encompasses other forms of hostility—religious, sexual, gender—which are morally equivalent, IMO). I prefer the term “discriminatory” when talking about impacts. I eschew “racist” because so many people understand it so differently.

Nonetheless, as a listener rather than as a speaker, it is important to try to understand what is being said. If I hear POC speaking of “racism,” and I insist on arguing definitions and hearing the term by my own preferred definition, I am being disrespectful and obstreperous. I need to listen in good faith to what my interlocutor is trying to tell me. If they’re using the term “racism” in a way I would not use it, but the distinction is irrelevant to the discussion, I can roll with it. (I’ll still use my preferred language for precision, but I’m not going to argue with how they use “racism.”)

The same is true when someone insists structural discrimination is not “racist.” It is important for me to listen and hear what is being said. Sadly, all too often, the speaker is denying that structural discrimination exists, or arguing that it doesn’t matter, or arguing that it’s just a fact of life we have no obligation to resolve. This latter is a common refrain in these discussions of the effects of structural discrimination in media. If you tell me the aforementioned hiring manager’s choice of newspaper was not “racist,” I want to know, are you at least willing to acknowledge that this is a problem and worth trying to address?

However, if the relevant topic is the moral culpability of the decision maker, and the speaker is legitimately seeking to make an essential moral distinction based on the intent behind the decision, then I think we should hear that sympathetically. Generally, this is not a particularly important topic when we’re discussing the casting of multi-billion dollar entertainment products. Who cares what Fiege is thinking? What’s important is what he does and how it impacts people. We can criticize his choices as discriminatory, without worrying about whether he intended them to be or was just oblivious.
I think this is a great analysis NuD.
Thunderbolts Draft: Punisher|Black Cat|Moon Knight(as Kraven the Hunter)|Diamondback|Taskmaster|Domino|Nuke|Trickshot |Jolt|Troll
Avengers International Draft: France|Spectrum|Capt. Universe|Swordsman|Batroc|M|Finesse|Deadpool

User avatar
Anna Raven
Posts: 4211
Joined: 28 Jun 2007, 22:53

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Anna Raven » 06 Dec 2018, 18:59

Nu-D wrote:
06 Dec 2018, 18:56
Strength:

OG Carol = CC Rogue < Juggernaut </= Hulk</=Thing if he digs deep and refuses to quit
:D
Thunderbolts Draft: Punisher|Black Cat|Moon Knight(as Kraven the Hunter)|Diamondback|Taskmaster|Domino|Nuke|Trickshot |Jolt|Troll
Avengers International Draft: France|Spectrum|Capt. Universe|Swordsman|Batroc|M|Finesse|Deadpool

User avatar
Jazzkantine
Posts: 470
Joined: 21 Aug 2018, 22:39
Location: Austria
Contact:

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Jazzkantine » 06 Dec 2018, 19:05

I don’t know why but I would be more excited if this film would be about Monica.

Ok, I also liked Suicide Squad better than the Batman and Superman films. :ugeek:
Uncanny X-Force: Mimic, Omega, Timeslip, Siphon, Red Lotus, Grid, Frenzy, Savitar - (Shaara), Graymalkin, Nil

User avatar
Nu-D
Posts: 2463
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 00:22
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Nu-D » 06 Dec 2018, 19:12

Anna Raven wrote:
06 Dec 2018, 18:58
I think this is a great analysis NuD.
Thank you. I’m gratified.

I’m a little annoyed, however, that my most egregious writing tic—the excessive and inappropriate use of commas—is so prevalent. I sound. like i am. writing. in fits and starts.

User avatar
EvilMonkeyPope
Posts: 5341
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 22:07
Contact:

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by EvilMonkeyPope » 06 Dec 2018, 22:24

The second Captain Marvel trailer made me more excited than the first, although it seems to spoil a little too much. (It will probably still be more satisfying than the Infinity War 2 trailer, should they ever deign to release it.) It looks like Carol may even go full Binary, which makes me wonder if they’ve saved anything for the sequel. Now we know she powers up by yelling “SHAZAM!”
https://mattthecatania.wordpress.com/20 ... daredevil/

User avatar
Blackcyclops
Posts: 18793
Joined: 12 Apr 2007, 21:03

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Blackcyclops » 07 Dec 2018, 03:47

Spectral Knight wrote:
06 Dec 2018, 15:00
tokenBG1009 wrote:
06 Dec 2018, 10:02
I think "racist" is one of those words used in these conversations that needs to have a different connotation behind it. Believing a certain demographic won't sell is racist, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. "Prejudiced" is probably a more accurate term in this case. "Racist" has generally always had a negative meaning behind it. I don't think Marvel or Disney execs were sitting in a boardroom rubbing their hands evilly and talking about how they're not going to make a minority starring movie. I don't care what anyone thinks, Black Panther would not have done as well in 2008. It probably wouldn't have had the money behind it it did either so it would've most likely been a lower quality movie anyways.

I'm not racist if I won't go into white suburbs and try to sell people NWA CDs. I'm prejudiced for believing I couldn't sell them in white suburbs.
This is a very good rationale. The other thing is the less well known characters have definitely benefited from growing goodwill for the Marvel brand. Would Strange or GOTG or Ant-Man or BP have done the numbers if they were the first films out the gate? Possibly, but as a marketing man by trade Marvel have driven their brand consistency so on the whole there's a brand tone and template to their movie stories, and I think each consecutive movie benefits from this brand consistency.

I'll be honest, I'm surprised BP did as well as it did. Partly because I (potentially very ignorantly) assumed that hey the MCU movies to date were not culturally prohibitive to a non white audience. Now in the main, I don't think they are really, but from some of the articles I've read, it appears BP revealed some perceived barriers that I hadn't recognised. There was a Black audience out there that hadn't really warmed to what had been produced so far, and hadn't invested the time or cash but were a potential audience who would spend big if the movie was right and the cultural background of BP helped it sell bucketloads of tickets.

Before any incorrect jumping to conclusions, I would say this isn't by any means a generalisation of the black consumer base as a whole. I know there were many who enjoyed the earlier MCU flicks as much as there were many white consumers who also enjoyed BP. I hope this helps reduce the perception that because a character is a different colour or from a different background it doesn't mean that story wouldn't be relevant.

Yeah that’s exactly what I meant in the very beginning that I get annoyed when execs keep getting surprised at this exact phenomenon. Now I didn’t think it would br THIS successful, but in this current era, to put it simplistically, Black people will support Black stuff lol...

And like Cable said, it’s shocking they’d get so shock cause Blade did happen lol
Morrison Era 2001-2005, Decimation Era from 2005-2012, Bendis Era 2012-2016, M-Pox era 2016-2017, and Resurrxion 2017-2019, Hickman Era 2019-?

User avatar
Blackcyclops
Posts: 18793
Joined: 12 Apr 2007, 21:03

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Blackcyclops » 07 Dec 2018, 03:47

Nu-D wrote:
06 Dec 2018, 15:55
What many people fail to understand is that a decision can be racist, even while the decision-maker is not racist. The intention of the decision-maker is only one factor. There are structural and institutional factors that underlie decisions which are racially biased because of historical reasons. The decision maker may be unaware of them, or even opposed to them, but nonetheless constrained by them.

A classic example is the hiring manager who only advertises in a newspaper that reaches an audience primarily of one race. The manager may be perfectly indifferent to the race of the candidate, but the decision to advertise only in the paper read principally by one racial group is “racist” because it excludes the pool of candidates from other races. This is true even if the decision was made to select that paper because it had the widest circulation, and there was only a budget for one ad. The market constraints, and the history of racial segregation in media choices, constrained the choice of the manager such that the outcome negatively impacted the people who read other papers.

If you don’t like the word “racist” applied to this inadvertent kind of perpetuation of racial inequity, that’s fine. We can quibble semantics and select a different term. I’m actually quite sympathetic to the argument that this kind of thing ought to be referred to as “structural discrimination” rather than “racism.”* But whatever label you want to put on to it, it is harmful to innocent people and we need to be cognizant that many of our daily decisions are inflected with this kind of structural discrimination. This kind of thing is happening all the time. Cumulatively, it has a massive negative impact on racial minorities.

This is exactly what infects so much of the Hollywood decision making. The omission of black characters from the original Avengers lineup was racist, not because someone didn’t want black people in the movie, but because there were a 1001 historical reasons black people were not “right” for the part. No basis in the comics, no history of black headliners for superhero films, no (known, established) market for black superheroes, the absence of massive wealth in the black community to create black financiers, etc. The structures in place to create the opportunity for the movie all omitted black people. Unless someone made a deliberate, concerted and conscious effort to fix that, it would be perpetuated by mere indifference, market forces and conservative inertia.

*Conversely, when I discuss overt racial animosity I prefer the word “bigotry” to the word “racism” because to many people “racism” includes unintentional discrimination. I want to precisely identify the phenomenon I’m discussing. Frankly, “racism” has such varied understandings amongst people, it’s a term I think has little use and creates more confusion than clarity.
Like always, you come across alot smarter than me lol
Morrison Era 2001-2005, Decimation Era from 2005-2012, Bendis Era 2012-2016, M-Pox era 2016-2017, and Resurrxion 2017-2019, Hickman Era 2019-?

User avatar
Spectral Knight
Posts: 1190
Joined: 14 Apr 2007, 21:00

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Spectral Knight » 07 Dec 2018, 06:06

Blackcyclops wrote:
07 Dec 2018, 03:47
Yeah that’s exactly what I meant in the very beginning that I get annoyed when execs keep getting surprised at this exact phenomenon. Now I didn’t think it would br THIS successful, but in this current era, to put it simplistically, Black people will support Black stuff lol...

And like Cable said, it’s shocking they’d get so shock cause Blade did happen lol
Removed the earlier quotes as it was getting a bit quote heavy in the chain, but an open question for you BC - and any other posters, but I know you'll have a good perspective on this! - but was Black Panther's success was because it included black "stuff"? What I mean is that BP unashamedly and rightly took a very afro-centric approach, whilst Cage on Netflix definitely took a Black African American culture. Is the reason why both succeed is because it's not a Black character per se but in both a wider examination of (different) black culture?

I think back to Blade, and yeah Snipes is black obviously lol, but the movie series was not really an examination of Black culture. To put it another way, there is no storyline reason why Hawkeye couldn't be black. Ethnicity is completely irrelevant for Clint's background - but if he was an original Avenger who was Black instead of white, would it have changed the appeal of the character? I think not- he'd still be the also-ran in the team- but would this have been better (at least it'd be a more diverse team) or worse (it's tokenism as there's no cultural element there)? I don't know the answer to that one as I see both sides of the coin at all but I'd be interested in everyone's thoughts, especially those who have more education on this.

(Finally while I'll freely accept I'm ignorant on some of the issues of diversity, I hope none of you think I'm deliberately prejudice - for me it's definitely more that I'm often not aware of some barriers / experiences / perceptions of discrimination. While there's black culture in the UK and certainly unfortunately we're not racism free by any stretch, I don't see as much of the divides that still persist in other parts of the world)

User avatar
Nu-D
Posts: 2463
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 00:22
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Nu-D » 07 Dec 2018, 11:57

Blackcyclops wrote:
07 Dec 2018, 03:47
Nu-D wrote:
06 Dec 2018, 15:55
Argle bargle.
Like always, you come across alot smarter than me lol
I have formal training and extensive professional experience in analytical writing. Nothing to do with smarts.

User avatar
Anna Raven
Posts: 4211
Joined: 28 Jun 2007, 22:53

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Anna Raven » 07 Dec 2018, 15:49

I also think most people (from the movie upper levels at least) considered Wesley Snipes an anomaly, sort of like Will Smith. Like the research proved that he was a bankable star (at least until he got into tax troubles) who they could slide into a normal action movie in the same way they could slide in Sylvester Stallone or Bruce Willis. But he was just considered an exception to the rule, and he only REALLY appealed to young male audiences, he couldn't carry a movie that was supposed to have mass appeal.
Thunderbolts Draft: Punisher|Black Cat|Moon Knight(as Kraven the Hunter)|Diamondback|Taskmaster|Domino|Nuke|Trickshot |Jolt|Troll
Avengers International Draft: France|Spectrum|Capt. Universe|Swordsman|Batroc|M|Finesse|Deadpool

User avatar
Nu-D
Posts: 2463
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 00:22
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Nu-D » 07 Dec 2018, 17:03

You know, this thread has been the most useful procrastination I’ve done in a very long time. I am currently writing a brief on implicit bias in jury selection, and these posts really helped me to organize and articulate my thoughts.

User avatar
P-90
Posts: 254
Joined: 11 Jul 2014, 02:32

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by P-90 » 07 Dec 2018, 18:19

Nu-D wrote:
07 Dec 2018, 17:03
You know, this thread has been the most useful procrastination I’ve done in a very long time. I am currently writing a brief on implicit bias in jury selection, and these posts really helped me to organize and articulate my thoughts.
'Implicit bias' is interesting especially as, as has been stated, it's something that even those who aren't in any way 'racist' could fall into. Given that, would you say that it's a symptom of being part of the majority, the subconscious exclusion of minorities must be a 'thing' in all nations regardless of what race the majority an minority are.

The question of intent is also an interesting one, on the one hand some people say 'only those who feel discriminated against can say whether something is racist or not' which personally I feel, like Donald Trump in concrete, it sets a bad precedent, but on the other hand surely, as with in criminal proceeding there has to be intent, even if someone feels they're a victim of 'racism' or they feel offended by something doesn't mean that's what was intended, that unfortunately leads to people being labelled as bigots and even punished despite not actually 'committing the crime'
'A shared universe, like any fictional construct, hinges on suspension of disbelief. When continuity is tossed away, it tatters the construct. Undermines it'

LimboMaster
Posts: 110
Joined: 18 Nov 2013, 22:10

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by LimboMaster » 07 Dec 2018, 20:01

P-90 wrote:
07 Dec 2018, 18:19
Nu-D wrote:
07 Dec 2018, 17:03
You know, this thread has been the most useful procrastination I’ve done in a very long time. I am currently writing a brief on implicit bias in jury selection, and these posts really helped me to organize and articulate my thoughts.
'Implicit bias' is interesting especially as, as has been stated, it's something that even those who aren't in any way 'racist' could fall into. Given that, would you say that it's a symptom of being part of the majority, the subconscious exclusion of minorities must be a 'thing' in all nations regardless of what race the majority an minority are.

The question of intent is also an interesting one, on the one hand some people say 'only those who feel discriminated against can say whether something is racist or not' which personally I feel, like Donald Trump in concrete, it sets a bad precedent, but on the other hand surely, as with in criminal proceeding there has to be intent, even if someone feels they're a victim of 'racism' or they feel offended by something doesn't mean that's what was intended, that unfortunately leads to people being labelled as bigots and even punished despite not actually 'committing the crime'
Implicit bias gets really tricky because it likely stems from basic learning theory. What learning theory has taught us is that we are statistical sponges. At its essence, learning theory tells us that we become attuned to regularities in our environment (classical conditioning) and regularities between our behaviors and the corresponding outcomes (operant conditioning). Thus, if we have a statistically skewed population on some aspect (e.g., one gender tends to be better or worse at x on the whole, or one race tends to exhibit more or less of x behaviors on the whole), that becomes reinforced in the perception and behavior of the population (because that gets reinforced by our own experience) and thus perpetuated. This is one of many reasons deliberate efforts to change the statistical landscape of representation of various groups on various fronts is so important.

User avatar
P-90
Posts: 254
Joined: 11 Jul 2014, 02:32

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by P-90 » 08 Dec 2018, 00:59

LimboMaster wrote:
07 Dec 2018, 20:01
P-90 wrote:
07 Dec 2018, 18:19
Nu-D wrote:
07 Dec 2018, 17:03
You know, this thread has been the most useful procrastination I’ve done in a very long time. I am currently writing a brief on implicit bias in jury selection, and these posts really helped me to organize and articulate my thoughts.
'Implicit bias' is interesting especially as, as has been stated, it's something that even those who aren't in any way 'racist' could fall into. Given that, would you say that it's a symptom of being part of the majority, the subconscious exclusion of minorities must be a 'thing' in all nations regardless of what race the majority an minority are.

The question of intent is also an interesting one, on the one hand some people say 'only those who feel discriminated against can say whether something is racist or not' which personally I feel, like Donald Trump in concrete, it sets a bad precedent, but on the other hand surely, as with in criminal proceeding there has to be intent, even if someone feels they're a victim of 'racism' or they feel offended by something doesn't mean that's what was intended, that unfortunately leads to people being labelled as bigots and even punished despite not actually 'committing the crime'
Implicit bias gets really tricky because it likely stems from basic learning theory. What learning theory has taught us is that we are statistical sponges. At its essence, learning theory tells us that we become attuned to regularities in our environment (classical conditioning) and regularities between our behaviors and the corresponding outcomes (operant conditioning). Thus, if we have a statistically skewed population on some aspect (e.g., one gender tends to be better or worse at x on the whole, or one race tends to exhibit more or less of x behaviors on the whole), that becomes reinforced in the perception and behavior of the population (because that gets reinforced by our own experience) and thus perpetuated. This is one of many reasons deliberate efforts to change the statistical landscape of representation of various groups on various fronts is so important.
Yeah, you might have to dumb that down for me a bit :oops: . Do you mean that humans are wired to believe statistics based on broad sweeping statements about behaviour within certain groups? (such as a specific race or gender) and that those beliefs in a society can feed discontent in those groups which can actually lead to such behaviours?. If so, does that mean that if a society acknowledges such statements for what they are and what they can lead to it can ultimately stop those behaviours from ever taking root by eliminating the cultural environment that enabled them in the first place? or is that complete nonsense and nothing to do with what you posted.

Also, what about factual statistics, for instance some here in Britain have complained about the low number of black faces on TV which is often accompanied by accusations of cultural racism and yet the reality is that the black Afro-Caribbean population here make up only 3% of the population (and easily already feature in our media in numbers far above that representative 3%). I understand and agree that representation is important (especially when it helps prevent things such as the misinformation talked about in the previous paragraph) but we're a traditionally white nation that is still white by a huge majority (something like 86%) so obviously the vast majority of people and characters in our entertainment media are going to be white, that in of itself is in no way racist or even discriminatory that's just the reality of the nation we live in. How do we, or any nation with a large majority (especially if the majority in the traditional group of than nation) correctly deal with the issue of fair representation for minority groups? and without it being an overreaction due to fear of being labelled racist.
'A shared universe, like any fictional construct, hinges on suspension of disbelief. When continuity is tossed away, it tatters the construct. Undermines it'

User avatar
Blackcyclops
Posts: 18793
Joined: 12 Apr 2007, 21:03

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Blackcyclops » 08 Dec 2018, 01:14

My only question is (and really only question), who does it hurt to show more varied people in a media? Will white people lose anything if there are more brown and black faces? Or how will men be hurt if more women are on TV in more varied roles? Because there’s nothing but positives (for the minorities and the majority) to adding diversity that fills varied roles in media...

And just so we’re clear the US has no where near proportionate representation in front or behind the camera in film or TV (both for major and minor projects). And definitely not in terms of diverse roles for those people...
Morrison Era 2001-2005, Decimation Era from 2005-2012, Bendis Era 2012-2016, M-Pox era 2016-2017, and Resurrxion 2017-2019, Hickman Era 2019-?

User avatar
Spectral Knight
Posts: 1190
Joined: 14 Apr 2007, 21:00

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Spectral Knight » 08 Dec 2018, 04:50

To be fair, I have seen criticism of diversity for the sake of diversity if it is tokenism, or worse a poor or stereotypical representation. We've also all seen the discussions regarding positive representations of non White male characters.

Now by no means is this an excuse because it isn't and I think for the most part you're right, but I wonder if there are occasions that creatives are scared of being seem to be the above and so "play it safe" instead to avoid a potential PR and consumer backlash

User avatar
Spectral Knight
Posts: 1190
Joined: 14 Apr 2007, 21:00

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Spectral Knight » 08 Dec 2018, 04:55

And P-90 - those stats are nationwide for the UK. You know as well as I do that it's not a equal distribution of BAME characters through the country. If you're doing a show or movie in London or Birmingham, you'd expect a far greater proportion of BAME characters than if you were looking something set in the highlands of Scotland. Two extreme examples but I think it illustrates that numbers can't tell the whole truth.

User avatar
Milkshake08
Posts: 1216
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 23:03

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Milkshake08 » 08 Dec 2018, 05:49

Apparently a superhero movie about a woman is so friggin rare that the thread can't even be about it but has to be about the lack of representation of not only women but other minorities, and how racism/sexism may/may not actually exist or be warranted. I'm sorry but if that isn't telling, than I don't know what is. And we have yet to see ANY LGBTQ people in the films.

User avatar
tokenBG1009
Posts: 5010
Joined: 19 Jun 2007, 20:34

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by tokenBG1009 » 08 Dec 2018, 07:30

Milkshake08 wrote:
08 Dec 2018, 05:49
Apparently a superhero movie about a woman is so friggin rare that the thread can't even be about it but has to be about the lack of representation of not only women but other minorities, and how racism/sexism may/may not actually exist or be warranted. I'm sorry but if that isn't telling, than I don't know what is. And we have yet to see ANY LGBTQ people in the films.
Go look at the Black Panther thread. There are months between some posts. The trailer came out and there were about 7 posts talking about it, before about a 4 month gap with no posts. It capped out at 5 pages. This is already at 11 with only the last 2 or so being the current discussion. I'm not sure what your argument is here.

Minor Edit: Real discussion started around page 5 for this movie after the EW cover came out. Regardless, there was more discussion on the trailers for Captain Marvel.
"Sometimes I do feel like I'm a failure. Like there's no hope for me. But even so, I'm not gonna give up. Ever!" -Izuku Midoriya

User avatar
Nu-D
Posts: 2463
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 00:22
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Nu-D » 08 Dec 2018, 13:58

Milkshake08 wrote:
08 Dec 2018, 05:49
Apparently a superhero movie about a woman is so friggin rare that the thread can't even be about it but has to be about the lack of representation of not only women but other minorities, and how racism/sexism may/may not actually exist or be warranted. I'm sorry but if that isn't telling, than I don't know what is. And we have yet to see ANY LGBTQ people in the films.
Good point.

I’m annoyed that A4 appears to be focused on four A-list men who all have headlined their own film franchises, and one A-list woman who has not. Presumably Carol will even that out a bit, but I wish they’d have kept Wasp around for some more development.

I think the reason this thread has drifted into a discussion of race, rather than gender, is because by and large comic fans don’t have the same hang ups (with the exception of the reprehensible gamergate contingent). We can all think of a dozen female Avengers we’d be thrilled to slot in to any space in the franchise, whether in the lineup for the original film, a headliner of her own franchise, or whatever. While not perfectly represented, women have been better represented than minorities, and we’re all ready and eager for more. It’s the concervative Hollywood ethos standing in the way.

On the other hand, there are far fewer minority characters that first the bill, and (until BP) they’ve been more underrepresented than women. It’s harder to come up with a list of minority characters you’d expect to support a franchise, or who would naturally slot into an Avengers team.

Of course, that’s just a failure of imagination. Really, there’s no reason someone we currently think of as B- or C-list can’t be promoted to the A-list. They did it with Carol and Scott. They could do it with just about anyone.
Last edited by Nu-D on 08 Dec 2018, 14:16, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Blackcyclops
Posts: 18793
Joined: 12 Apr 2007, 21:03

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Blackcyclops » 08 Dec 2018, 14:04

Well A4, for it be a conclusion to a larger story HAS to focus on the original Avengers. You can quibble about them being the chosen original avengers (as I did above) but for it give closure to their story it has to be about Iron Man, Thor, Cap, the Hulk, Hawkeye and Black Widow...CM will undoubtedly play a role (as Strange and BP did in Infinity wars) but this is the end of their story/contracts. Only Black widow has solid plans for anything going forward. She’ll be the only one who has to survive the experience lol

So I think if your issue is going to be that, then you might want to honestly prepare yourself to be disappointed tbh.
Morrison Era 2001-2005, Decimation Era from 2005-2012, Bendis Era 2012-2016, M-Pox era 2016-2017, and Resurrxion 2017-2019, Hickman Era 2019-?

User avatar
P-90
Posts: 254
Joined: 11 Jul 2014, 02:32

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by P-90 » 08 Dec 2018, 14:08

Blackcyclops wrote:
08 Dec 2018, 01:14
My only question is (and really only question), who does it hurt to show more varied people in a media? Will white people lose anything if there are more brown and black faces? Or how will men be hurt if more women are on TV in more varied roles? Because there’s nothing but positives (for the minorities and the majority) to adding diversity that fills varied roles in media...

And just so we’re clear the US has no where near proportionate representation in front or behind the camera in film or TV (both for major and minor projects). And definitely not in terms of diverse roles for those people...
As I stated, diversity and representation is fair and right, my issue however is purely about those who wrongly use accusations of racism and bigotry as weapons. Again my question was about genuine factual statistics and how to answer such accusations with the reality of the issue. I'm in no way saying that more black people or women or whoever else you might mention would hurt anyone just that those accusations are wrong.
'A shared universe, like any fictional construct, hinges on suspension of disbelief. When continuity is tossed away, it tatters the construct. Undermines it'

User avatar
Nu-D
Posts: 2463
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 00:22
Location: Durham, NC
Contact:

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by Nu-D » 08 Dec 2018, 14:21

Blackcyclops wrote:
08 Dec 2018, 14:04
Well A4, for it be a conclusion to a larger story HAS to focus on the original Avengers. You can quibble about them being the chosen original avengers (as I did above) but for it give closure to their story it has to be about Iron Man, Thor, Cap, the Hulk, Hawkeye and Black Widow...CM will undoubtedly play a role (as Strange and BP did in Infinity wars) but this is the end of their story/contracts. Only Black widow has solid plans for anything going forward. She’ll be the only one who has to survive the experience lol

So I think if your issue is going to be that, then you might want to honestly prepare yourself to be disappointed tbh.
I would say while that’s the starting premise, there’s some wiggle room. One of the big three could have been omitted. And a couple more later additions could have been included. I’m glad they kept Lang around, but why not also Wasp? Could have let Wanda survive. Maybe give Okoye or one of BP’s awesome supporting cast more of a role?

I’m sure in the third act just about everyone will be there. But they’re missing a chance to develop some of their better b-listers into genuine a-listers be leaving them out of the opening acts.

User avatar
P-90
Posts: 254
Joined: 11 Jul 2014, 02:32

Re: Captain Marvel

Post by P-90 » 08 Dec 2018, 14:32

Spectral Knight wrote:
08 Dec 2018, 04:55
And P-90 - those stats are nationwide for the UK. You know as well as I do that it's not a equal distribution of BAME characters through the country. If you're doing a show or movie in London or Birmingham, you'd expect a far greater proportion of BAME characters than if you were looking something set in the highlands of Scotland. Two extreme examples but I think it illustrates that numbers can't tell the whole truth.
That's is actually the reality of the situation, there's huge diversity in the major cities and to some extent some of the larger towns but outside of those places, in the vast majority of the country that's just not the case. As I stated diversity and representation is good and fair but the idea that you have to feature minorities in every single advert, TV show and movie (even those set in a historical period) just isn't in any way realistic. The accusations of societal racism and bigotry that that come in the rare instance that this isn't the case or against individuals who bring attention to this reality is not just unfair it's outrageously wrong.
'A shared universe, like any fictional construct, hinges on suspension of disbelief. When continuity is tossed away, it tatters the construct. Undermines it'

Post Reply