There are also many other minor aspects. Such as Comic book Yondu lives in the 30th century and he is basically an alien Hawkeye. Comic book Captain America does not have superhuman strength, no holding down a helicoptor for example.
You are apparently not aware that the MCU was heavily inspired by the "Ultimate Marvel" comic line. In that, Cap does in fact have superhuman strength. That is also what the whole Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury came from. They specifically drew their Nick Fury to look like him before he was even cast in the movies.
Many of the "ultimate" versions of the characters are quite different than the "regular" versions, so if you are going to compare comic characters to their movie counterparts you will need to research the ultimate version of the characters.
I'm not sure if its noted in either of those but comic book Tony Stark is nothing like RDJ's version, he was never the snarky nickname giver he is in the films, personality wise he was much closer to Batman.
See my last post about the Ultimate comics. The MCU Tony Stark is based on the Ultimate version, which had the snarky personality you are referring to.
I'm not sure if its noted in either of those but comic book Tony Stark is nothing like RDJ's version, he was never the snarky nickname giver he is in the films, personality wise he was much closer to Batman.
Why did you make a false argument that the MCU Tony didn't match the comics Tony if you KNEW it matched the ultimate version?
I'm not sure if its noted in either of those but comic book Tony Stark is nothing like RDJ's version, he was never the snarky nickname giver he is in the films, personality wise he was much closer to Batman.
Why did you make a false argument that the MCU Tony didn't match the comics Tony if you KNEW it matched the ultimate version?
hazarding a guess here but "He doesn't Care for the Ultimate Line"??
Oh I get that. But not liking something has nothing to do with pretending it does not exist.
If you know a comic version of Tony exists that the MCU version was based on, then it is simply dishonest to make the argument that the MCU version is not like the comic version it was based on.
It wasn't actually, if you watch RDJ movies he always has that personality, his Tony acting that way is because of him not the Ultimate line,
The ultimate comics came before the first iron man movie. Marvel decided to base their MCU Tony on the ultimate version, so obviously they cast an actor that matched that role. They specifically brought in the ultimate writers as consultants on the movie. Denying it does not change the fact that it is true.
The criticism is that the kid of the Avengers family has a far better backside than the female saviour of the Avengers.
...you do realise there's more important things in a character than just how useful they are for non-PG13 things?
The kid also has a better developed and more interesting backstory, better lines, better sense of humor, better scripting, is played by a better actor, in a better movie that didn't have to have shennanigans from the studio to look better in the industry filings, didn't have to have the critics write phake reviews, is actually written as a human being with flaws that are his own instead of being always someone else's fault, has a more solid and believable motivation, and is less annoying. (Considering that Peter Parker's motivations are some of the most abused tropes in fiction, this last bit says a lot.)
also has more character growth in a bunch of cameos totaling less than half an hour, than the former Ms Marvel has in fourteen books, and a major motion picture from Disney/Marvel that is solely devoted to her alone.
the only thing Carol has (aside from being an author-sue plot device with no life of her own) is that lavishing of attention and protection from the corporate sponsors and an Oscar for a different movie.
Peter Parker in the MCU: an actual character that is made to be very much a person.
Carol (Brie Larson) Danvers in the MCU: is a political statement and an attempt to cover some executive's habit of groping starlets.
Sorry, you lost me as soon as you brought up the "corporate fake reviews" myth as a real thing.
The criticism is that the kid of the Avengers family has a far better backside than the female saviour of the Avengers.
...you do realise there's more important things in a character than just how useful they are for non-PG13 things?
The kid also has a better developed and more interesting backstory, better lines, better sense of humor, better scripting, is played by a better actor, in a better movie that didn't have to have shennanigans from the studio to look better in the industry filings, didn't have to have the critics write phake reviews, is actually written as a human being with flaws that are his own instead of being always someone else's fault, has a more solid and believable motivation, and is less annoying. (Considering that Peter Parker's motivations are some of the most abused tropes in fiction, this last bit says a lot.)
also has more character growth in a bunch of cameos totaling less than half an hour, than the former Ms Marvel has in fourteen books, and a major motion picture from Disney/Marvel that is solely devoted to her alone.
the only thing Carol has (aside from being an author-sue plot device with no life of her own) is that lavishing of attention and protection from the corporate sponsors and an Oscar for a different movie.
Peter Parker in the MCU: an actual character that is made to be very much a person.
Carol (Brie Larson) Danvers in the MCU: is a political statement and an attempt to cover some executive's habit of groping starlets.
Sorry, you lost me as soon as you brought up the "corporate fake reviews" myth as a real thing.
While some reviewers may not be explicitly paid off, it is true and has been admitted before that a lot of reviewers tend to go soft on certain movies and games from certain people because they wish to stay in the company's good graces and receive benefits such as early screenings and events and early copies of games, occasionally with bags of goodies. Basically Disney isn't likely to fly out a reviewer to see say... Star Wars Episode 9 early if that reviewer gave Disney movies a poor review.
Sometimes however this still doesn't stop reviewers because sometimes a movie or game is so bad that it just transcends that notions. But you can see some evidence of this in how the biggest names are sometimes the ones with the most drastic departure between audience and critic scores. Look at somethine like Mass Effect Andromeda, an absolute abomination of a game but it was made by EA and Bioware and EA gives lots of benefits to the reviewers it likes. Everyone hated the mess the game was but somehow Reviewers mostly gave it an above average score such as 7 out of 10s. Similar things happen to movies but it seems less prevalent than the gaming industry and perhaps that has to do with most of the time if the movie is truly god awful the Reviewers aren't willing to "shill" as some people like to put it. Yet in other cases we have movies like the 2016 Ghostbusters movie which got good reviews but was absolutely hated by audiences.
It seems that its the more high profiles movies where movie reviewers tend to lean towards going soft as Disney probably cares less about a terrible movie like Dumbo that got terrible reviews, than say a super high budget and expensive film like Captain Marvel.
While some reviewers may not be explicitly paid off, it is true and has been admitted before that a lot of reviewers tend to go soft on certain movies and games from certain people because they wish to stay in the company's good graces and receive benefits such as early screenings and events and early copies of games, occasionally with bags of goodies. Basically Disney isn't likely to fly out a reviewer to see say... Star Wars Episode 9 early if that reviewer gave Disney movies a poor review.
Sometimes however this still doesn't stop reviewers because sometimes a movie or game is so bad that it just transcends that notions. But you can see some evidence of this in how the biggest names are sometimes the ones with the most drastic departure between audience and critic scores. Look at somethine like Mass Effect Andromeda, an absolute abomination of a game but it was made by EA and Bioware and EA gives lots of benefits to the reviewers it likes. Everyone hated the mess the game was but somehow Reviewers mostly gave it an above average score such as 7 out of 10s. Similar things happen to movies but it seems less prevalent than the gaming industry and perhaps that has to do with most of the time if the movie is truly god awful the Reviewers aren't willing to "shill" as some people like to put it. Yet in other cases we have movies like the 2016 Ghostbusters movie which got good reviews but was absolutely hated by audiences.
It seems that its the more high profiles movies where movie reviewers tend to lean towards going soft as Disney probably cares less about a terrible movie like Dumbo that got terrible reviews, than say a super high budget and expensive film like Captain Marvel.
The other problem being that people tend to scream "shilling" about any reviews that are more positive about a given thing than their personal opinions.
However, in this case the accusation was specifically that Disney was faking positive reviews for the film, not merely restricting preferential access to those most likely to give positive press, rather than what EA dubs "wild cards".
The other problem being that people tend to scream "shilling" about any reviews that are more positive about a given thing than their personal opinions.
This is a rather prevalent issue, even here on the forums in regards to certain subjects. It got so bad that new rules regarding Gatekeeping was instituted because people were attacking others based on personal opinions on certain subjects, biggest one being Discovery. But the fact is that particular issue has existed at least as far back as Enterprise. Just not to the degree we saw in the last couple years.
Its ok to disagree, but to launch attacks because they happen to disagree on certain subjects is wrong.
The idea that some reviews are bought out by corperate people probably isn't a new one either. But if there was a case of one for an MCU movie... I'd be surprised as they generally sell themselves because they're so good. Hell... other than Wonder Woman and what I've heard of Aquaman, I'd expect more of it from DC because it took them so long to break the love they have of trying to make everything as grim/dark as the Dark Knight Trilogy. Which slapped them in the face many times as grim/dark doesn't fit characters like Superman. It only really works for Batman.
The other problem being that people tend to scream "shilling" about any reviews that are more positive about a given thing than their personal opinions.
This is a rather prevalent issue, even here on the forums in regards to certain subjects. It got so bad that new rules regarding Gatekeeping was instituted because people were attacking others based on personal opinions on certain subjects, biggest one being Discovery. But the fact is that particular issue has existed at least as far back as Enterprise. Just not to the degree we saw in the last couple years.
Its ok to disagree, but to launch attacks because they happen to disagree on certain subjects is wrong.
The idea that some reviews are bought out by corperate people probably isn't a new one either. But if there was a case of one for an MCU movie... I'd be surprised as they generally sell themselves because they're so good. Hell... other than Wonder Woman and what I've heard of Aquaman, I'd expect more of it from DC because it took them so long to break the love they have of trying to make everything as grim/dark as the Dark Knight Trilogy. Which slapped them in the face many times as grim/dark doesn't fit characters like Superman. It only really works for Batman.
"Wonder Woman" handled quite a bit of grim/dark material...but did it exceptionally well. "Aquaman" the whole macguffin was both grim, and dark...and it was done well. This is why and how you don't notice them.
but both Hollywood AND the music industry have been caught at shilling before, and in Captain Marvel's case, it was blatant. the level of blatancy requires intentional self-delusion to deny. the largest review site out there, changed their rules, and algorithms, and manipulated their data to save this turkey. Notably, the owner of the parent company is a former Disney exec who still owns stock options. The whole phenomena of empty seats in sold out theaters is also documented, and as yet, has yet to be explained aside from a baghdad-bob level of denial.
generally speaking, people who aren't the studio or artist and buy a ticket aren't going to be buying a ticket to then not show up for the movie. this happened.
similarly to a couple of incidents in the music industry where records nobody wanted hit Platinum in record times-because the artist (Most notable example: Jay-Zee did this) bought up the bulk of the first run at retail then dumped the stock on the secondary market.
Net loss, right? only that generated enough 'buzz' to generate enough sales to make up what was spent doing it and make a profit.
In Disney's case, they really needed to show good numbers for an opening weekend after their manufactured controversy got out of hand, and the Disney corporation has the financial room to do something similar to what rappers were doing to get that coveted platinum album, because in Disney's case, a bad showing hits the stock price and credit score of the parent company, and it isn't like they don't have an army of lawyers to keep SEC regulators off their necks.
The allegation of manipulation has legs, because it's happened before, and this time it is BLATANT.
>the largest review site out there, changed their rules, and algorithms, and manipulated their data to save this turkey.
Would that be the site which was being flooded with negative audience reviews from people who could not possibly have seen the film yet?
But I'm sure you have an explanation for why you think Disney is willing to spend $2 billion dollars to make $800 million?
The other problem being that people tend to scream "shilling" about any reviews that are more positive about a given thing than their personal opinions.
This is a rather prevalent issue, even here on the forums in regards to certain subjects. It got so bad that new rules regarding Gatekeeping was instituted because people were attacking others based on personal opinions on certain subjects, biggest one being Discovery. But the fact is that particular issue has existed at least as far back as Enterprise. Just not to the degree we saw in the last couple years.
Its ok to disagree, but to launch attacks because they happen to disagree on certain subjects is wrong.
The idea that some reviews are bought out by corperate people probably isn't a new one either. But if there was a case of one for an MCU movie... I'd be surprised as they generally sell themselves because they're so good. Hell... other than Wonder Woman and what I've heard of Aquaman, I'd expect more of it from DC because it took them so long to break the love they have of trying to make everything as grim/dark as the Dark Knight Trilogy. Which slapped them in the face many times as grim/dark doesn't fit characters like Superman. It only really works for Batman.
"Wonder Woman" handled quite a bit of grim/dark material...but did it exceptionally well. "Aquaman" the whole macguffin was both grim, and dark...and it was done well. This is why and how you don't notice them.
but both Hollywood AND the music industry have been caught at shilling before, and in Captain Marvel's case, it was blatant. the level of blatancy requires intentional self-delusion to deny. the largest review site out there, changed their rules, and algorithms, and manipulated their data to save this turkey. Notably, the owner of the parent company is a former Disney exec who still owns stock options. The whole phenomena of empty seats in sold out theaters is also documented, and as yet, has yet to be explained aside from a baghdad-bob level of denial.
generally speaking, people who aren't the studio or artist and buy a ticket aren't going to be buying a ticket to then not show up for the movie. this happened.
similarly to a couple of incidents in the music industry where records nobody wanted hit Platinum in record times-because the artist (Most notable example: Jay-Zee did this) bought up the bulk of the first run at retail then dumped the stock on the secondary market.
Net loss, right? only that generated enough 'buzz' to generate enough sales to make up what was spent doing it and make a profit.
In Disney's case, they really needed to show good numbers for an opening weekend after their manufactured controversy got out of hand, and the Disney corporation has the financial room to do something similar to what rappers were doing to get that coveted platinum album, because in Disney's case, a bad showing hits the stock price and credit score of the parent company, and it isn't like they don't have an army of lawyers to keep SEC regulators off their necks.
The allegation of manipulation has legs, because it's happened before, and this time it is BLATANT.
>the largest review site out there, changed their rules, and algorithms, and manipulated their data to save this turkey.
Would that be the site which was being flooded with negative audience reviews from people who could not possibly have seen the film yet?
But I'm sure you have an explanation for why you think Disney is willing to spend $2 billion dollars to make $800 million?
Being "Flooded"? they kept the botted positive reviews. (do a look a t the text of the positive reviews, and count how many are copypasted.) the claim is ridiculous on the face of it.
But the idea that Disney would deliberately try to lose money is perfectly valid, apparently. Plus the fact that while researching the "empty theatres" thing all I found where angry YouTube videos and blog posts.
>the largest review site out there, changed their rules, and algorithms, and manipulated their data to save this turkey.
Would that be the site which was being flooded with negative audience reviews from people who could not possibly have seen the film yet?
But I'm sure you have an explanation for why you think Disney is willing to spend $2 billion dollars to make $800 million?
How can it be flooded with negative audience reviews when the movie wasn't released? Lots of people just don't understand that it wasn't review bombing, but people just didn't Want to See the movie. Due to a ton of people saying they didn't Want to See Captain Marvel on Rotten Tomatoes, Rotten Tomatoes got rid of the Want to See Percentage on their site. If I remember correctly, the Want to See Percentage was at about 30% for Captain Marvel before they disabled it.
>the largest review site out there, changed their rules, and algorithms, and manipulated their data to save this turkey.
Would that be the site which was being flooded with negative audience reviews from people who could not possibly have seen the film yet?
But I'm sure you have an explanation for why you think Disney is willing to spend $2 billion dollars to make $800 million?
How can it be flooded with negative audience reviews when the movie wasn't released? Lots of people just don't understand that it wasn't review bombing, but people just didn't Want to See the movie. Due to a ton of people saying they didn't Want to See Captain Marvel on Rotten Tomatoes, Rotten Tomatoes got rid of the Want to See Percentage on their site. If I remember correctly, the Want to See Percentage was at about 30% for Captain Marvel before they disabled it.
"“You could not pay me to see this SJW laden white male hating worthless POS movie,” commented one user. “I am sick of this identity politics taking over pop culture. Brie Larson could get hit by a bus and I would not shed a tear.”"
Comments
You are apparently not aware that the MCU was heavily inspired by the "Ultimate Marvel" comic line. In that, Cap does in fact have superhuman strength. That is also what the whole Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury came from. They specifically drew their Nick Fury to look like him before he was even cast in the movies.
Many of the "ultimate" versions of the characters are quite different than the "regular" versions, so if you are going to compare comic characters to their movie counterparts you will need to research the ultimate version of the characters.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
See my last post about the Ultimate comics. The MCU Tony Stark is based on the Ultimate version, which had the snarky personality you are referring to.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Ok then, let's get something straightened out.
Since the MCU Tony's personality IS in fact based on the ultimate version, and you DID know about the ultimate comics, why did you say this:
Why did you make a false argument that the MCU Tony didn't match the comics Tony if you KNEW it matched the ultimate version?
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Oh I get that. But not liking something has nothing to do with pretending it does not exist.
If you know a comic version of Tony exists that the MCU version was based on, then it is simply dishonest to make the argument that the MCU version is not like the comic version it was based on.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
Wish some Trek fans would understand that.
The ultimate comics came before the first iron man movie. Marvel decided to base their MCU Tony on the ultimate version, so obviously they cast an actor that matched that role. They specifically brought in the ultimate writers as consultants on the movie. Denying it does not change the fact that it is true.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
I am not sure I follow your criticism here.
Just a guess, and I may be wrong, but...
If one has no "back side" one has no place to sit?
The criticism is that the kid of the Avengers family has a far better backside than the female saviour of the Avengers.
Trials of Blood and Fire
Moving On Parts 1-3 - Part 4
In Cold Blood
I think the point is Tom Holland is thicc af
Captain Marvel needs a solid base to support the Avengers. Sadly she is lacking in that department.
...you do realise there's more important things in a character than just how useful they are for non-PG13 things?
Sorry, you lost me as soon as you brought up the "corporate fake reviews" myth as a real thing.
While some reviewers may not be explicitly paid off, it is true and has been admitted before that a lot of reviewers tend to go soft on certain movies and games from certain people because they wish to stay in the company's good graces and receive benefits such as early screenings and events and early copies of games, occasionally with bags of goodies. Basically Disney isn't likely to fly out a reviewer to see say... Star Wars Episode 9 early if that reviewer gave Disney movies a poor review.
Sometimes however this still doesn't stop reviewers because sometimes a movie or game is so bad that it just transcends that notions. But you can see some evidence of this in how the biggest names are sometimes the ones with the most drastic departure between audience and critic scores. Look at somethine like Mass Effect Andromeda, an absolute abomination of a game but it was made by EA and Bioware and EA gives lots of benefits to the reviewers it likes. Everyone hated the mess the game was but somehow Reviewers mostly gave it an above average score such as 7 out of 10s. Similar things happen to movies but it seems less prevalent than the gaming industry and perhaps that has to do with most of the time if the movie is truly god awful the Reviewers aren't willing to "shill" as some people like to put it. Yet in other cases we have movies like the 2016 Ghostbusters movie which got good reviews but was absolutely hated by audiences.
It seems that its the more high profiles movies where movie reviewers tend to lean towards going soft as Disney probably cares less about a terrible movie like Dumbo that got terrible reviews, than say a super high budget and expensive film like Captain Marvel.
The other problem being that people tend to scream "shilling" about any reviews that are more positive about a given thing than their personal opinions.
However, in this case the accusation was specifically that Disney was faking positive reviews for the film, not merely restricting preferential access to those most likely to give positive press, rather than what EA dubs "wild cards".
This is a rather prevalent issue, even here on the forums in regards to certain subjects. It got so bad that new rules regarding Gatekeeping was instituted because people were attacking others based on personal opinions on certain subjects, biggest one being Discovery. But the fact is that particular issue has existed at least as far back as Enterprise. Just not to the degree we saw in the last couple years.
Its ok to disagree, but to launch attacks because they happen to disagree on certain subjects is wrong.
The idea that some reviews are bought out by corperate people probably isn't a new one either. But if there was a case of one for an MCU movie... I'd be surprised as they generally sell themselves because they're so good. Hell... other than Wonder Woman and what I've heard of Aquaman, I'd expect more of it from DC because it took them so long to break the love they have of trying to make everything as grim/dark as the Dark Knight Trilogy. Which slapped them in the face many times as grim/dark doesn't fit characters like Superman. It only really works for Batman.
>the largest review site out there, changed their rules, and algorithms, and manipulated their data to save this turkey.
Would that be the site which was being flooded with negative audience reviews from people who could not possibly have seen the film yet?
But I'm sure you have an explanation for why you think Disney is willing to spend $2 billion dollars to make $800 million?
But the idea that Disney would deliberately try to lose money is perfectly valid, apparently. Plus the fact that while researching the "empty theatres" thing all I found where angry YouTube videos and blog posts.
How can it be flooded with negative audience reviews when the movie wasn't released? Lots of people just don't understand that it wasn't review bombing, but people just didn't Want to See the movie. Due to a ton of people saying they didn't Want to See Captain Marvel on Rotten Tomatoes, Rotten Tomatoes got rid of the Want to See Percentage on their site. If I remember correctly, the Want to See Percentage was at about 30% for Captain Marvel before they disabled it.
"“You could not pay me to see this SJW laden white male hating worthless POS movie,” commented one user. “I am sick of this identity politics taking over pop culture. Brie Larson could get hit by a bus and I would not shed a tear.”"
Sounds pretty review-bomby to me.