battlewraith

If, instead of waiting for Critical Drinker's review of this film, people sat through his Rogue Elements: A Ryan Drake Story before seeing Thunderbolts*, their appreciation of the Marvel film would probably go up half a step, if not a full ranking.

I think it's a very difficult problem and there's really no objective answer to it. It's almost like alchemy at this point. If the right ingredients are there in the right quantity it will work. I've never been a big Superman fan. Despite that fact, I grew up with the Christopher Reeves movies. I watched Smallville. I own the Bruce Timm Justice League animated series. I think I saw 2 of the movies where Henry Cavill was Superman. For me personally, there's a strong disincentive to see a new Superman movie with a new actor because I don't want to sit through all of the familiar aspects of the story yet again. I feel the same way about Spiderman. The first Tom Holland one was a surprise because they seemed willing to just skip over some of that baggage. They glossed over Uncle Ben's death and made Aunt May younger and attractive. They took one of the most oddball Spiderman villains, the Vulture, and made him into an actually relatable villain. One who was not some world ender that needed to be stopped at all costs. I think these choices were kind controversial for a well established character but they worked. I found the movie a lot more enjoyable because of it. Maybe that's where Gunn's inclinations lie.

Lol I went on and on and on because you and others kept quoting me. Don't cry about it. The movie will eventually come out, so we will have answers to a lot of the objections (whether Pasco will work as Reed, etc.) If Sue in the film is put in charge of everything, starts barking orders and making the others look stupid, you can proudly say I told you so. If it turns out to be a reasonable depiction of the character for 2025, I'll point to all the whinging you did over nothing.

TLDR Version of this thread: 1. This movie will suck because of Pedro Pascal 2. This movie will suck because of time travel 3. RDJ as Doctor Doom?!?! 4. This movie will suck because of the fake trailer I just watched. Nothing can polish this turd! 5. Real trailer looks good. Oooops turd got polished. 6. Digression about Superman's disguise. 7. Griping about modern audiences. 8. Of course Reed is a dick and will talk down to his wife. 9. No, Sue can't be a bossgirl. She's a mom. Haven't you seen Aliens?!? The thread was rife with negativity from the get-go. I'm looking forward to it. That first trailer won me over. I think strong visual style is the key to success for this film. I also read articles about Sue and Johnny that make them sound like thoughtful interesting takes on the characters. Beyond that I don't want to know much more because I want to go in not knowing how things will play out.

Some people can't grasp the difference between dislike of certain types of people and dislike of certain types of characterizations, particularly in fiction. Some people understand the difference, but will equate the two things in order to deflect criticism that they don't like. An easy way to see if somebody has an issue with a female character--put that character in charge of something. See who gets mad. Also, Alex I'll take therapist for $200.

I was done yesterday.

🫠

You are the counterpart to those people. You would probably get more enjoyment out of media in general if you stopped letting twitter, social media influencers, etc. predigest them for you.

Again. Ripley was a strong character in the first film and none of that was driven by maternal instinct. AFAIK, none of the other films that feature Siqourney Weaver besides Aliens feature her acting out of maternal instinct. None of the more recent films in that setting, despite having a variety of strong female protagonists, follow that cliche. It was a gimmick that appeared in one film. The idea that Ripley doing what a team of highly trained, well armed soldiers were unable to do--is somehow because of maternal instinct--is absolutely ridiculous. It was because she was already shown to be extremely competent in the first film. Characters who are mothers or act out of maternal instinct are not necessarily weak, shallow or boring. Relying on that as a crutch to ramp up interest in a character is weak or cliche storytelling. Was Ripley diminished by it? No. Did it add anything to the character? Not really. It just added suspense in an action film. Ironically, the problem some people have here with Sue (potentially) in the upcoming film is the inverse of the logic being deployed here for Ripley. Ripley is not diminished by Cameron depicting her as have maternal instinct. But Sue, an established mother figure, is going to become an asshole or somehow destroy the film if she's given a leadership role. I actually don't think all this whinging is about Sue anyway. It's about Reed. Just as a vampire recoils from the light of day, some dudes are horrified by the thought of a cherished male hero being upstaged by a woman.

LOL just stop. You're actually starting to make me want to see this movie.

Ripley was brought up in the context of this discussion as an example of a strong "mother type character" by someone who seemed to be unaware that the first Alien film was a thing. Which is overt fail, because--as you point out-- Ripley was a compelling character in the first film where there was no indication of her mothering anything.

Losing the Chinese market is part of it. The studios are also going to be facing skyrocketing production costs.

Right. because Ripley, a compelling resourceful character in the first film, was not a mother in Alien. There was absolutely no indication that she had a child or was driven by maternal instinct. Cameron ramped up the suspense in a stereotypical way by having her look after an endangered child--which seemed to work for people who mistakenly think that Aliens was the first film. The gimmick worked for one film. Then Newt was promptly killed off in Alien 3. Probably because a maternal Ripley would not have wanted anything to do with more xenomorph action. In fact early scripts had Hicks become the main protagonist.

Characters who are defined solely by motherly traits, probably by writers who can't imagine anything else to do with the character. This is how the Stan Lee era Sue is generally regarded--even the George Marston quote Excraft posted describes that era as stereotypical writing that didn't serve the character well. This is the writing that you said that you would prefer over Sue having a leadership position. You are the outlier in the fandom. I don't have a problem with female characters that have children or display maternal instincts. I just don't want to sit in a theater and watch Sue mother grown ass men for two hours because it's an easy way to define a character. There's a big difference between following her development in the comics, over decades, and a feature film. In the comics Sue has lead the team. She had a stint as a supervillain. She got a doctorate. And during the civil war storyline she and Johnny left Reed and were on the opposing side of the conflict. But oh noes! They might give her some leadership position in a movie...better start fretting over girlbossing.

Lol I don't even think you understand the objection. But at least you're not straining yourself anymore actually trying to say anything.

More of the same. You just repeat your bias while dodging the argument. There is no reason why Sue can't be a mother AND have a leadership position. It can work. It has worked already in the comics. You are insisting on a false dichotomy--either this characterization entirely conforms to some unspecified era of the comics that suits you or the characterization is going to be bad. Let's try this: I'm an editor for Marvel and I'm going to do a new iteration of one of the superhero teams--West Coast Avengers, or defenders, or something. And I decide that I would like Sue Storm to be the leader of the team. Given all that classic Sue brings to the table--why would she be a bad choice?

You've implied that throughout with respect to Sue. You give two options: either she serves as the mother figure of the team but doesn't officially lead anything. Or she becomes a leader and is therefore a reimagined girlboss for a modern audience. Nobody has given any kind of coherent explanation for how giving her some sort of authority outside of her family relationships is going to ruin the character. Other than cherrypicking examples of other films (Snow White, etc.) where changes were done in poorly received films. Moreover, I can't find any information to the effect that Sue in this film is leader of the Fantastic Four. Wikipedia says that she is the leader of the Future Foundation--which seems to be another team. So that begs the question, what is Sue allowed to be in charge of before she transitions into a horrid girlboss? It's deeply profound issues like this that keep someone... somewhere.. awake at night..at least part of the time.

Nobody here AFAIK is saying that. Go into that class and tell those ladies that they shouldn't hold any leadership positions. That would destroy them--they would become girlbosses. Being a mother and a matriarch is enough. According to some dudes on the internet.

On the contrary, I'm the eternal optimist. It's like planting a little seed. One day it will bloom and you will take a break from your online outrage peddlers and youtube grifters and realize this anger you have over fictional characters is pretty silly. Maybe you'll even find a girl boss you like, lol. Until then, keep up with the downvotes. Your feelings are very important to me. 🙂

There are always poorly written, poorly received boss characters in movies and television. Given that the vast majority of these bosses have been men, maybe you're the one not paying attention. For every bad female lead in a superhero picture, there's probably a Kraven, a Morbius, and a shitty Venom film. Not to mention all of the cardboard thin depictions you see in other genres. Regardless, I'm not compelled to keep score. I don't have that hangup. It's worth noting that the examples to which you're pointing are specifically James Cameron's treatment of these characters. Sarah Connor's fine given that it's his material and serves the narrative goals of his films. What he did to Ripley was pandering and a betrayal of the character. Ripley's defining moment in Alien is when she refuses to let the survey team back on to the ship. They are begging her to let them in she refuses because she's rational and understands why there there is a protocol for that situation. If she hadn't been undermined by Ash, the majority of that crew may have survived the encounter. Cameron does a 180 in the sequel and has her chasing after an endangered child. That's not to say these are bad movies. That shit works. It worked in theatrical melodramas. It worked in serials when they would tie a girl up and throw her on the train tracks. Personally, I would just like to see something less cliche in 2025.

Disney acquired Marvel in 2009. All but the first 5 MCU films were distributed by Disney. I understand that the integration between Marvel and Disney has increased over time but Disney's been involved for a long time. I have not seen an epidemic of girl boss cliches in these films. I don't go to see Princess movies and I thought the Force Awakens was a garbage retread of the first Star Wars film so I didn't see the others. I'm not going to judge this film on the basis of Snow White or whatever other creative teams did on other properties. I didn't know that Sue was going to be leader of anything until I started reading people complaining about it here. It's not super important that she be the leader. I'm not even clear on what her being leader actually means--whether she's actually issuing orders in combat or she's setting the budget and overseeing recruiting for a superhero team. Whatever it is--I find that more interesting than her being the mom of the team. I welcome the thought that they might give her character more to do than that. The mom angle is more pernicious than the girlboss. If you're lazy and you don't really want to do something interesting with a female character you can play up their maternal aspects (which FF comics were trying to move away from when I was a kid). Even a character like Ripley who was a strong character that had nothing to do with motherhood. Chuck an endangered child in front of them and play up their maternal instincts. It's pandering, weak writing that's really stale and generic. You could do this to make any female character "strong." I didn't see the 2015 movie. I did see the ealry 2000s one where Reed was the leader and I can barely remember it. Maybe you should write a letter to the studio bosses explaining how to save the industry.

I don't know what your deal is. What's apparent to me is that there are some hidden assumptions going on with how you are regarding this film. All I know is that, from what I've read, Sue is in charge of the Future Foundation--which in the comics at least seems to be an overlapping team that may or may not include FF members. Based off of that data point, you're speculating that Sue will be a poorly written character berating her male counterparts to boost herself up. Lol why? If it is, as you say, about how the character is written then this concern is absolutely baseless at this point. Why not Benn or Johnny as leader? Why not have Franklin bitchslap Galactus? Ask the filmmakers. They are drawing on the source material in a way that interests them. The fact that there are other possible options doesn't mean that these particular choices are arbitrary or bad. I still regularly go to the theaters to see movies. And I've seen some excellent films that were flops. And there's also crap that people will turn out to see in large numbers. That's exactly your problem. You want to boil it down to one thing. It doesn't work that way. The industry can be suffering from the effects of streaming and be producing blockbuster hits. Both can be true at the same time.

Right, that's the difference: I'm not bothered by female characters in leadership positions. I didn't stop reading X-men when Storm took over leadership back in the 80s. I don't equate female leaders with emotionally fragile men getting bullied (or whatever the problem is here). You would rather have a Sue that berates Ben over legitimate concerns and pushes him into a situation that ruins his life in a rush to beat the commies, than one who can lead. What more do I need to add? And honestly this whole discussion is dumb because Sue has lead the team at times in the actual comics. If a significant subset of people are able to get something more cheaply or conveniently--they will. It's not an issue about what an industry is producing. File sharing did a lot of damage to the music industry--not because people stopped liking the bands. Streaming did a lot of damage to the porn industry--not because reptiles lost interest in their favorite performers. AI is damaging the financial situations of a lot of artists--not because people like their art less. Also, Hollywood is producing product that people are willing to go see. Sinners and The Minecraft movie are Killing it--after Warner Bros. had three flops including the disastrous Joker sequel. A couple successful movies and Disney can turn things around and just wave away this doom and gloom.

On the point of the source material and reinterpretation, I went back and read the first issue of Fantastic Four which was hilarious. The origin story begins with Ben telling Reed that he refuses to fly the spaceship because he is afraid of exposure to cosmic rays. Sue then insists that they have to do it or else the commies will get there first. She calls Ben a coward for not wanting to go, making him relent. In space, they start suffering the effects of the radiation and Reed says basically "Ben was right. I didn't put enough shielding in the ship." Once back on Earth, Ben turns into the Thing and swings a tree at Reed, telling him that he's a weakling and that Sue is marrying the wrong guy. By all means, let's insist that Disney put that source material on the screen. The fact of the matter is that all of these old comic characters have gone through waves of revision in their comics history and then further revisions when translated to the screen. I think there are a number of reasons why superhero flicks are not doing as well. I think crap writing is a flimsy explanation because there has been crap writing throughout. A lot of the Marvel films throughout the earlier phases were pretty crap. They were just new and they were propped up by proximity to the movies that were actually good. Captain Marvel performed very well. The Marvels was a bomb. Having seen both, there was not some huge gap in the quality of the writing. If they hadn't waited 10 years to make The Marvels, it probably would've done a lot better simply through momentum from the first film. Likewise, the fact that streaming is destroying the film industry doesn't mean that people don't want Hollywood's product. It means they don't want to go sit in the theater for it--they'll watch it home. It's about expense and convenience, not quality. Nothing makes a mother weak. I never said that. What I was talking about was cliche, weak storytelling. The notion that Sue as a character is defined as the mom of the team. This is something that John Byrne pushed back on when I was reading FF in the 80s. And in the context of this discussion, people are arguing that "being a mom is a powerful thing" as a way of justifying her not having more of a leadership position. She has status in her professional role as a cosmically powered superhero, not because of her insights, training, or actual superpowers, but because she is the mom of the group. Absolute cack. I brought this up before, I'll do it again. Simply apply the same reasoning to Reed. He's the father of the group. He's the father to his wife. He's the father to his best friend. And he's the father to his brother in law. And he wants to save the Earth from Galactus because the patriarchal instinct is so strong. It's cringe. It adds nothing of interest to the character and I feel the same way about Sue in 2025 when people have been juggling family and careers for decades.

1. Most streaming content from what I've seen is garbage. The market is probably moving towards streaming largely because it's cheaper to stream and people don't want to drag themselves to the theater. 2. MCU is probably getting less popular and that probably has to do with people getting tired of cape flicks. Moreover, superhero comics are far less popular than when I was a kid reading them. There are a lot of reasons for these declines but the biggest is probably far more access to entertainment options. Not middle-aged fans being pissed that things were not the same as in their childhood. 3. It's inferred constantly. You're like the Lorax for aggrieved dogmatic comics nerds. 4. Ripley had no child or reference to being a mother in Alien. It was in no way a relevant aspect of her character in the first movie (The theatrical release of Aliens also did not include any reference). Ripley's character did not need any reference to motherhood in order to be a compelling protagonist. Cameron tacked that aspect on to the character in the sequel. If people are whining about Sue's character in the team being potentially changed--then they should be against Cameron's addition to Ripley's character. But there's no logical consistency here. 5. LMFAO you're trying to make the case for Sue being a matriarch by directing me to material about the fucking queen of England? 6. Yes I'm apparently the only one in this argument who would like more for Sue than stereotyped portrayals of her mothering her male friends and family. 7. Okay so it's a crazy comic book world where the unbelievable happens. So I'll stop taking issue with Super genius Reed taking his civilian friends on a dangerous space mission and you stop seething about Sue getting an expanded leadership role in the team. Mmmmkay?