The Marvel/Sony Superhero Movies Thread

[Milky Joe]

I have avoided reading fan theories but my personal feeling (I am probably not the first to suggest this) about Far From Home is that it's going to open up with the scene of Spidey on the bus from IW. his spidey sense goes off just like it does in IW, but then he looks up and there's no spaceship or alien threat (the snap erased/timeline reset). a spidey deja-vu or sorts, a memory from the time-slip. "false alarm I guess..." the bus, of course, taking him on the field trip to Europe.

[Dead & Messed Up]

End Game will likely be 3 hours long. And i read a fan theory today that is the most possible scenario to resolve the "snap" and now I'm mad because it's so stupidly obvious and safe that I can't believe I didn't think of it.

Spoiler it?

[Grouchy]

End Game will likely be 3 hours long. And i read a fan theory today that is the most possible scenario to resolve the "snap" and now I'm mad because it's so stupidly obvious and safe that I can't believe I didn't think of it.

So?

[Dukefrukem]

So?

Spoiler it?

[

Show Spoiler

The Snapening didn't kill everyone. It created an alternate Universe and split the universe in half. This would make sense why the world in Spider-man: Far From Home looks totally normal. It also makes sense why most of the original Avengers did not get snapped. It's a way of the MCU to keep those heroes "alive" (as their contracts run out) and bring them back for future movies if ever needed.

]

[Grouchy]

I like the idea but I wonder if it's not too confusing for general audiences.

[Wryan]

[

Show Spoiler

The Snapening didn't kill everyone. It created an alternate Universe and split the universe in half. This would make sense why the world in Spider-man: Far From Home looks totally normal. It also makes sense why most of the original Avengers did not get snapped. It's a way of the MCU to keep those heroes "alive" (as their contracts run out) and bring them back for future movies if ever needed.

]

[

Show Spoiler

Except that almost everyone in Spider-world is present with I guess the exception of Tony. That's a lot of luck that almost everyone in that part of the Marvelverse was snapped/not snapped enough to appear in their movie in their universe. But I dunno.

]

[Dukefrukem]

[

Show Spoiler

Except that almost everyone in Spider-world is present with I guess the exception of Tony. That's a lot of luck that almost everyone in that part of the Marvelverse was snapped/not snapped enough to appear in their movie in their universe. But I dunno.

]

[

Show Spoiler

Well three people we know for a fact were snapped, Nick Fury, Marie Hill and Spider-man are all together in Far From Home. The kids could just be by chance/coincidence. (I counted, and there's 5 Spider friends returning in the Far From Home trailer- Happy, MJ, Flash, May and Ned - Which is less than the amount of Avengers that were NOT snapped 10) Remember, there could also be a memory aspect of this- likely wiped by the Mind Stone that those people even remember they were part of a former universe.

I kind of like the lore idea of that happening, and maybe over the course of several movies moving forward, some of the snapped Avengers piece together the puzzle.

]

[megladon8]

Marvel’s The Leftovers.

[Dukefrukem]

Did you forget you already made that joke on the last page?

[Henry Gale]

I don't want to spoil what I do know, but as much as that theory has a very sound internal logic to it, it is not what it is.

[Ezee E]

[

Show Spoiler

But in Endgame, they're all aware that the other half are gone? Is the thought that the new universe is totally unaware that half the world is gone?

]

No sir, I don't like.

[Skitch]

I dont like any of that one bit. But who knows. See how it plays out.

[Dukefrukem]

I know I know, bad corporate, bad Disney... but I kinda want this.

[

Show Spoiler

]

[Dukefrukem]

Social MEdia reactions are in. Apparently Ben Mendelsohn Steals The Show

[Peng]

Waiting for non-fanboy critics to weigh in, but the reactions from those fanboy ones seem a bit muted.

[Irish]

The fanboy crix are always bright and cheery over whatever the studio feeds them. That's sorta their job, after all.

I heard this was getting hammered on Rotten Tomatoes by the usual trogs (it has over 8,000 user ratings and the movie isn't out yet).

So I think this'll be the usual contentious bullshit on social media but it will still make tons of money, and everybody in the entertainment press will hail it as another major achievement and milestone.

[megladon8]

The big one with this one is all the butthurt white boys who think this is some attack on them personally.

I can’t even count the number of “first Black Panther...now this?!?” posts and comments I’ve seen all over the web.

And then the idiocy reached a new height when the aforementioned dude-bros took Larson’s comments about inclusivity in the press for the film as being “I HATE ALL WHITE MEN AND THEY SHOULD ALL DIE!!!!!”

It’s truly pathetic how white men can’t handle something that isn’t catered specifically for them.

[Ivan Drago]

And then the idiocy reached a new height when the aforementioned dude-bros took Larson’s comments about inclusivity in the press for the film as being “I HATE ALL WHITE MEN AND THEY SHOULD ALL DIE!!!!!”

Those actually didn't sit well with me, but in a different way, and for a different reason.

I consider myself to be a good film critic (but there's always room for improvement). I approach every review without bias and with excitement because I'm finally doing what I love to do professionally. Although I do wish I was getting paid, that's a sentiment every critic shares these days. Nevertheless, I got screeners, joined a critics guild and voted in its awards ceremony, all for the first time this year, and that fills me with so much pride and happiness. It's one of the few things that makes me feel good in this era.

I also believe there should be more inclusivity in film criticism and film journalism, because more cultures leads to more perspectives, more people to talk to about cinema, and more movies to watch, which in turn, gives me and other aspiring filmmakers more films to draw inspiration from.

So, for Brie Larson to say that she doesn't want to hear what I have to say about movies with a female protagonist or a lead of color is insulting and reductive, because it tells me that even though I'm an ally (I hate President Cheeto as much as everyone with a reasonable IQ), I'm still automatically the enemy regardless of my political affiliation, or regardless of how fair I am as a film critic just because I'm a straight white male.

And to say films with female/POC protagonists and/or directors aren't made for me goes against what I stand for: just because a film has a certain demographic doesn't mean other audiences can't get something out of it. I'm for equal rights and representation like any sane person, but telling subgroups of critics they can only review movies within their own culture is detrimental to the cause we all want to see come to fruition. It's all so discouraging, that I end up feeling like no one wants me to do what I love to do, and it's paralyzing in how depressed it makes me feel.

[megladon8]

That’s really not what she said, though.

[Ivan Drago]

That’s really not what she said, though.

If there's a news source that covers the story about what she said fairly, optimistically and balanced in all aspects, please link me to it.

I'm going to feel like a fool if I fell for an article with an outrage-attracting headline.

[Morris Schæffer]

I consider myself to be a good film critic (but there's always room for improvement). I approach every review without bias and with excitement because I'm finally doing what I love to do professionally. Although I do wish I was getting paid, that's a sentiment every critic shares these days. Nevertheless, I got screeners, joined a critics guild and voted in its awards ceremony, all for the first time this year, and that fills me with so much pride and happiness. It's one of the few things that makes me feel good in this era.

Hey that's great man!

[megladon8]

She just wants more inclusivity in the film critic/news industry.

She’s not going out of her way to NOT allow white men to cover her / the film. What she’s going out of her way to do is to make sure others get a shot, too.

“Am I saying I hate white dudes?” Larson said. “No, I’m not … [but if] you make the movie that is a love letter to women of color, there is an insanely low chance a woman of color will have a chance to see your movie and review your movie.”

[Irish]

When Brie Larson won an Oscar for the 2015 movie Room, I jumped for joy as if I knew her. I hadn’t even seen the film yet, but I’d just finished the moving novel by Emma Donoghue that it was based on (about a mother and her five-year-old son held captive in a room), and felt certain she had done the role of Ma justice.

^ The first line of the interview where Larson hand-picked the interviewer, btw.

That isn't journalism. It's public relations. (What do you think the chances are that Brown will give a 4-star, absolutely glowing review to "Captain Marvel"? Pretty good, I imagine.)

Larson's comments on film criticism are self-serving. She comes off as duplicitous because she can't -- or won't -- acknowledge the contradictions in what she's doing. She's on a fool's errand because playing managing editor as a movie star does nothing to change anything at an institutional level. The EICs, publishers, and owners are still all white dudes.

It's also reductive and insulting to everybody when you take a black writer, for example, and put repeatedly put them on "black" beats (eg: Wesley Morris at The New York Times.)

Imagine telling Pauline Kael that she had some special insight into "Sisters" because she was a woman (she would have had a fit). Or telling Roger Ebert that nobody wants to hear from him on "The Color Purple" or "Do the Right Thing" because he was a white dude from southern Indiana.

Saying that she doesn't want to hear white men criticize "A Wrinkle in Time" because it "wasn't made for them" is obvious nonsense. It's like when filmmakers trot out the tired line about how they make movies for "the fans" and not "the critics." Well, sorry, but if you make a $200 million movie and release it into 4,000 theaters, you're making movies for everybody.

Actually, scratch that bit about money and range. Isn't art supposed to be for everybody? Saying that it isn't reduces our collective humanity. On some level, Larson champions the idea that white dudes lack the curiosity and empathy to understand anyone else's story. That's the part that I, personally, find insulting.

The larger problem with isn't that the critical crowd is white and male. It's that they're dumb and uneducated. It's that the entertainment press is so craven that they won't even weakly push back on Larson's half-formed ideas. Because she doesn't want critics of any shade; she wants sycophants.

[Ezee E]

^ The first line of the interview where Larson hand-picked the interviewer, btw.

That isn't journalism. It's public relations. (What do you think the chances are that Brown will give a 4-star, absolutely glowing review to "Captain Marvel"? Pretty good, I imagine.)

Larson's comments on film criticism are self-serving. She comes off as duplicitous because she can't -- or won't -- acknowledge the contradictions in what she's doing. She's on a fool's errand because playing managing editor as a movie star does nothing to change anything at an institutional level. The EICs, publishers, and owners are still all white dudes.

It's also reductive and insulting to everybody when you take a black writer, for example, and put repeatedly put them on "black" beats (eg: Wesley Morris at The New York Times.)

Imagine telling Pauline Kael that she had some special insight into "Sisters" because she was a woman (she would have had a fit). Or telling Roger Ebert that nobody wants to hear from him on "The Color Purple" or "Do the Right Thing" because he was a white dude from southern Indiana.

Saying that she doesn't want to hear white men criticize "A Wrinkle in Time" because it "wasn't made for them" is obvious nonsense. It's like when filmmakers trot out the tired line about how they make movies for "the fans" and not "the critics." Well, sorry, but if you make a $200 million movie and release it into 4,000 theaters, you're making movies for everybody.

Actually, scratch that bit about money and range. Isn't art supposed to be for everybody? Saying that it isn't reduces our collective humanity. On some level, Larson champions the idea that white dudes lack the curiosity and empathy to understand anyone else's story. That's the part that I, personally, find insulting.

The larger problem with isn't that the critical crowd is white and male. It's that they're dumb and uneducated. It's that the entertainment press is so craven that they won't even weakly push back on Larson's half-formed ideas. Because she doesn't want critics of any shade; she wants sycophants.

Couldn't agree more.

[megladon8]

I agree with everything you said, Irish. I just didn’t take Larson’s words in that way.

So many seem to think her intention was to attack white men, but I thought it was more about inclusion.

Of course it would be silly (and regressive) to always be putting people on assignments we feel they “belong” on, but I think there is some truth to her statement about how many opinions from 40 year old white men do we need on a movie about a woman of colour?

Sure I’d love to have read what Roger Ebert had to say about Dope (wonderful movie, by the way), but I’d also love to read what someone who perhaps lived in that area thought about it.