Oceans 8 didn't have a fanbase primarily consisting of nerds/geeks.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Variety: Why it’s actually great that Captain Marvel is just fine
- Thread starter Scullibundo
- Start date
It is.
It's on par with Thor 1 and the Ant Man movies if that helps at all.
I can already hear Bob Iger call Kevin Feige and go "Hey Kev, I know you just finished the third act and need to tighten up the graphics a little bit but it's okay, I read on Variety that we can finally just phone in these movies."
I dont see CM till tomorrow and I already know that's bollocks.
?
Do you have an argument?
I laid out mine several times. Shit once directly to you.
Yeah, it's not a bad movie. It's just your standard Marvel movie, which is kinda disappointing after Black Panther and Infinity War.
how you can call aquaman mediocre and go on to stan for every marvel movie ever is hilarious to me
I'm not arguing with you my friend, just fascinated to know what you're like IRL and wonder if you have video content available for me to watch.
I think I get the point the author is trying to make (I said something similar before the game was out, we need to allow female-led movies to happen without requiring them to be the second coming or hailing them as such just because), but I'm not sure I'm completely onboard with they way he/she's saying it.
I am not being literal about my incel remark.
Regardless, you're splitting hairs over the intent here between those two statements, or more specifically you're still missing the point in the need to hair-split. The author saying there should be more mediocre blockbuster films starring women being a good thing is because she is analyzing Captain Marvel's reception from a context regarding the differences between majority audience reactions to minority-led films versus majority-led ones. It's about the recognition that mediocre films are going to be made regardless, and it would be better to live in a world where alt-right snowflakes didn't use Ghostbusters, Wonder Woman, Captain Marvel, The Last Jedi, or any other sacred cow of a property to be little shits in real life because they inherently tie their disappointment in these films to the mere existence of the minorities starring in them.
Literally, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the medium and business and film-making. She's talking to fragile white male nerds.
And finally, why is it on female-led films to push the business forward? We should be doing that regardless. This is the pressure I talked about in my original post.
This is silly.
"See, we were going to try to actually make a really good film, but I saw an article online about how it's okay to not do that, so we're just going to half ass it instead."
So you're just trolling?
I'm not sure what you're trying to do here by turning it into a Captain Marvel vs. Aquaman thing.
I replied to your comment that DC films can't simply be "mediocre" and find success by pointing out that Aquaman found success. Huge at the box office, fans enjoyed it. Hell, a horrific movie like Suicide Squad was a huge hit.
What you said wasn't true. It's not just Marvel movies that can be "mediocre" but receive a positive reaction from audiences.
This is an embarrassingly bad article for Variety. The premise is asinine.
We're talking about an industry that was built on female actors. An industry whose, essentially, first blockbuster starred a woman as the protagonist... AND as the antagonist (Wizard of Oz). And an industry which was greatly focused on its big female stars for decades and decades.
What we're really talking about isn't about the industry as a whole. It's about comic book superhero movies. They've been male-lead dominated because that is exactly how the source material is, because that is the audience that traditionally bought them.
That's slowly changing now, but let's be honest about what the situation is.
I think this is a pretty flawed argument. I get it for black people, and other minorities. I don't get it for women.
We're talking about an industry that was built on female actors. An industry whose, essentially, first blockbuster starred a woman as the protagonist... AND as the antagonist (Wizard of Oz). And an industry which was greatly focused on its big female stars for decades and decades.
What we're really talking about isn't about the industry as a whole. It's about comic book superhero movies. They've been male-lead dominated because that is exactly how the source material is, because that is the audience that traditionally bought them.
That's slowly changing now, but let's be honest about what the situation is.
I'm glad we can agree Aquaman is a good movie worthy of a billion dollars
I think an important distinction to make is that when we say "there need to be more mediocre female led movies" what we should mean isn't that we need more mediocre female led movies to get.. something, or somewhere. It means that we need them to exist because it's proof that we got to a point where female-led movies aren't required to be exceptional to exist. If we have many mediocre female-led movies (much like we have countless mediocre male-led movies) it must mean that people are producing and consuming female-led movies with the same ease as they are with male-led ones.
It's consequence, not cause. It's about getting to the point where each new female-led movie doesn't have to prove female-led movies have a right to exist.
Just to clarify, I think it's pretty average. They haven't come close to Wonder Woman yet -- though I think they're about to do that with Shazam.
Same thing I asked a coworker after he went to a press screening. Exactly like that.
I do plan on seeing it this week anyway, but still, I had to know.
This article doesn't really mean anything against my point. I can't figure out if it's entirely based on the "Top-grossing 100 films" of all time, or just 2017. Either way that's an extremely flawed premise. If it's 2017 we're talking about a single year. If it's all time... well there is a hell of a lot more than 100 movies out there.
Like what are we talking about here. All movies in the genre? All movies in one year? All movies ever, period?
Because I sure as hell know there's been plenty female-led movies in the mediocre category like "Salt" and "Colombiana" to immediately derail this Variety article's premise.
I don't understand how you could read that and then actually type, "That doesn't mean anything against my point."
Yes, it does.
I wasn't talking about representation in the top 100 grossing movies ever, or in 2017 specifically. I was talking about representation overall in films. Full stop.
The idea that Captain Marvel (and Wonder Woman) is some new breakthrough is a bit preposterous to me considering the history of the industry. It's only significant in the context of comic book super hero movies.
I don't know what the general opinion is these days, but beyond its obviously great effect in the social realm and awesome costumes, I felt like Black Panther was the same kind of "just okay" that people are saying Captain Marvel was.
Brah the link is literally says 2017 statistics just admit you were wrong... it's ok we all jump the gun with anecdotal evidence sometimes
But ok let's go 10 years!
https://www.bustle.com/p/female-rep...decade-but-theres-a-way-we-can-fix-it-9940849
Like I have the numbers dude... you have "But Wizard of Oz"
User Banned (1 Week): Trolling over a series of posts; account still in junior phase
No, I'm earnest. I want them to have a YouTube channel, and that's okay.
"its only significant if women are kept from from being protagonists in only the largest money making section of one of the larget industries on the fucking planet"
We are always going to have ladybirds and Fances Ha movies but women need to be able to play and make money in non traditional (which is a bullshit phrase anyway) female roles like being a superhero or an action star.
Uh, have you listened to anything women actors have been saying for the last generation or did you just today join the conversation about representation?
It's not enough to be 'built on female actors' when you consider the actual cost of how things have happened up until now. This story just broke
Things aren't nearly as fine as you think they are. Dredging up the cast of an eighty year old film like a prop doesn't buttress your argument nearly as strongly as you think it does.
Dude the 100th grossing film of 2017 made 21 million.
The top 100 is widely representative of film as a whole.
Truth. The writing wasn't great but it knew exactly what it wanted to be, and it excelled at being both entertaining and visually creative.
Captain Marvel kinda just exists.
Woohoo women we did it!
We're now only double + 8 away from men
A new record.
https://womenintvfilm.sdsu.edu/research/
That is a somewhat strange take to actively desire more average fluff.
But there's something that Patty Jenkins once said that was interesting (and kinda sad), about how she consistently rejected projects because she felt that if a movie failed all female directors would brunt that failure. So that feeling of pressure was on her shoulders.
I'd like to say you're right, but honestly I think Aquaman operates on a somewhat inferior level and is less competently-made compared to the average Marvel production. Maybe it hits higher highs if you're a fan of the comic books.
But there's something that Patty Jenkins once said that was interesting (and kinda sad), about how she consistently rejected projects because she felt that if a movie failed all female directors would brunt that failure. So that feeling of pressure was on her shoulders.
I'd like to say you're right, but honestly I think Aquaman operates on a somewhat inferior level and is less competently-made compared to the average Marvel production. Maybe it hits higher highs if you're a fan of the comic books.
I saw that it said 2017, and I thought that is what it was, which is why I mentioned it. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that maybe you were talking about more than just a single year. Because to look at a single year does not make any sense.
Regardless, I never claimed female led films were equal in number to male led films. I know they aren't. And it's only exacerbated when we're talking about blockbuster films.
Literally all I'm saying is that the premise of the Variety article that we need more mediocre female-led movies like Captain Marvel is flawed... because they are plenty of big female led movies.
If we're looking at just the big big movies of the last few years, off the top of my head there was a new Mary Poppins, 3 (about to be 4) new Star Wars movies, the Hunger Games series, the Divergent series, Jupiter Ascending, Maleficent, Atomic Blonde, 10 Cloverfield Lane, Beauty and the Beast, Ghostbusters, Ocean's 8, Adrift, The Shallows, Annihilation, Wrinkle in Time, Bumblebee, Mortal Engines, Alita Battle Angel, and yes, Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel. Plus, of course, there are movies with essentially equal co-lead parts like Mad Max: Fury Road.
Again, my point isn't to say that there are more of these than male-led films. But there are certainly plenty that exist. Enough to where the premise that mediocrity is needed is ridiculous.
See my last post.
Don't put words in my mouth. I never said "things are fine." I'm not even talking about the grimy shit that has gone on with some of these producers. That seems like an almost complete derail from the premise of the topic, and everything I was talking about.
Nah.
It started better, but my God it just keeps going and going.
This is really hard for me to judge from lol. I actually quite liked the first Thor and Ant Man movie, even if the former was a bit of slow burn. Ant Man and The Wasp though is the most boring Marvel film IMO since theres no real villain in the film.
Duude
You came to me and dismissed my claim that there was even a problem.
It's double + for men... that's not even in the stratosphere of equal.
Women are represented at half the rate + that men are
You're argument is literally some examples exist therefore we he can't say there aren't enough.
To which I say women have less than half the representation men do as leads.
You don't have an argument, you have nothing to base your disagreement on, you're using the mere existence of some filns as proof, and dismissing the actual numbers.... you're flat out wrong and clearly for some reason are unable to admit it, even though there's no cost or penalty for doing so.
Also literally the last Hunger Games movie was 5 freaking years ago.
mediocre/shitty/bad all contributes to having women in film. Its just exposure.... and mediocre might be amazing to someone else. If it wasn't an issue, we wouldn't have to split hairs over it. You need more exposure in all types of content.
You can have both, and both contribute to more women in content. Its fine. People want to be portrayed as they normally are, not just saved for the big token moments. That means bad/good/awesome content.
I mean, we could also focus on the grimy shit that went on with The Wizard of Oz, like them starving and pushing cigarettes onto a then 17 year old girl so she could fit into a dress that made her look younger and thinner. This was, after all, your trump card in your attempt at a counterpoint to 'women creators need to get the same benefit of the doubt in an industry that just burped up an Oscar onto Peter Farelly and keeps giving Guy Ritchie tens of millions of dollars per film.'
the article spells it out in unambiguous language:
Successful women directors are given a fraction of the chances enjoyed by their white, male mediocrity counterparts. And when they fail (see: A Wrinkle In Time), there's a pause while people are terrified this means that's it for some women in the blockbuster scene.
That isn't right. Things shouldn't be this way.
Sure, I agree with that. I also just think we should be aiming higher in general though. I'm against mediocrity in film period. And I think Variety promoting mediocrity is dumb. Another poster earlier in this thread said Marvel must be thrilled that critics are praising a half-measure. And I agree with that sentiment. And that's the problem I take.
That's not at all what the column is saying. It's saying that women creatives deserve the same number of chances that male creators do, not that we should accept mediocrity just because a woman did it.
But there are tons of female led mediocre movies released every year going back decades. Nobody cares or get upset about that.
Duuude
By laws of the sheer number of films that exist in any given year... if we actually want women to have the same chances to work as men a huge chunk of them have to be mediocre because a vast majority of films made in a given are mediocre.
This shit is not complicated.