Brie Larson was inverviewed by Sana Amanat, comic writer that wrote for Captain Marvel and created Kamala Khan AKA Ms.Marvel (the first muslim superhero in Marvel). She confirms the movie will be activist about disversity, inclusivity and feminism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrFfXZ4stU0
Why can't they make neutral movies?
IW was neutral, Endgame seems neutral too
Both IW and Endgame belong to the old cycle, which was mostly neutral. Captain Marvel is the first movie in the Marvel new cycle of movies (kind of new 'Iron Man').
As first movie, its job is to set the tone for the cycle to come. Iron Man did it quite well, setting a light tone (compare to the dark-tone in DC ones), lots of humor, punchlines, and lack of political subtext. But that was the old cycle, which is about to end.
The new cycle seems to aim for a much more political and activist tone, which is the current trend in Disney (see Star Wars). So Captain Marvel is just doing its job establishing it.
I think they're going to alienate their core audience if they push it too far (much like Star Wars has).
Escapism no longer provides escape.
I hope I'm wrong about this.
Didn't you fight this same "Diversity" war with Black Panther? How did that turn out? It seems that audiences rather enjoyed the movie for it's cast, locations and themes. It sure made the movie different.
You really think locations and themes had anything to do with why Black Panther made so much money?
You know why it made so much money. Anyone with half a brain knows why it made so much money, and especially why it was nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, and it sure as hell wasnt because it was the greatest movie of all time.
This is coming from someone who enjoyed Black Panther a lot.
Lack of political subtext? Iron Man was about a capitalist arms dealer learning the error of his money-seeking, murder-profiting ways. Politics, messages, etc., can be put into film without it being a bad thing. It's how it's done that breaks it.
share"Iron Man did it quite well, setting a light tone (compare to the dark-tone in DC ones), lots of humor, punchlines, and lack of political subtext."
Iron Man in the movie is founded on opposition to the Military Industrial Complex.
Yes it lacks political SUBtext I suppose... its declared more specifically, although it becomes subtext soon after when Tony decides that the best way to stop building weapons is to build the BEST weapon.
Well, that's true.
And yet, it happens that the the goal of the movie's villain is the same than Tony Stark's: to take control of the industry that builds the best weapons. Not to say later on, in the first Avengers movie, Stark's obsession with building the best weapon will almost destroy the world.
Even it's a popcorn movie (so don't expect too much complexity) characters and motivations in Iron Man are far more complex that the ones can see in (for example) last Pixar's feminist short "Purl", released last weeks, populated by nazi fascist evil white men and a good and pure female sjw main character.
However, I think you have a point: "lack of political subtext" is not the right expression. Politics used to be complex, full of nuances and gray areas. It'd be more appropiate to say "lack of religious subtext", since modern feminism/diversity is more a religious belief than a complex political ideology.
Because some of us actually enjoy movies that include diversity, inclusivity, and feminism. And will pay to see them.
We consider ourselves an underserved market, at least in the superhero genre.
Sure. But you don't make $200 million movies aiming a niche market. You don't use your most profitable franchise to aim a niche market.
Of course, you can do it... and go broke. That's why the Star Wars next trilogy was canceled. The same that would have happened if you buy Star Wars to make high-budget movies aimed to the Christian market. Good luck with that.
From a business point of view, it makes no sense, which means that political views are being prioritized over money.
And when big business stops prioritizing money, you know something is really screwed.
Very true.
Disney's film division is being totally saved and propped up by Marvel's extraordinary success. If they go down this route with Marvel they are in deep doo doo.
Uh... people who aren't straight white men aren't a niche market, they're the majority of the population.
Although of course in have no demographic stats about the people who see comic book movies, and am not in interested in looking any up.
Well, white males make almost half of Europe and one third of North-America. Add to that the Asian market, since Asians really dislike this modern politically correct trend, even more than western white males.
So you're pissing off half your market to please the SJW niche market. Good luck with that.
Um the non white male market isn’t the demographic, people who will go see activist movies are the demo. That’s niche
shareThat's certainly true of real activist movies, but this isnt a real activist movie. This is a superhero movie with tiny bits of lip service to good causes thrown in, and the target demographic is the solid mainstream.
Or so I guess, because that's the standard for the genre.
The movie doesn't have to be anti-diversity. There's no need to be divisive one way or the other. Although don't you think it's strange that Hollywood doesn't cater to this market in Racist America?
shareCaptain Marvel is a powerful woman anyway so the film doesn't have to lay on the heavy pc politics..
and film makers are going to learn this the hard way if they don't stop twisting everything and robbing creativity and being preachy at its audience and draining everything of any entertainment value ................and discover that nobody wants to go to the movies anymore.
I’m not surprised, but still think it’s going to be a great movie.
shareWhat movie doesn't nowadays? Women rule white men suck, it's a tired narrative.
shareI wonder if the MC SJW will butt in to call you a "Islamophobe Incel who voted Trump"!
shareSure.
By the way, I wonder why the 'incel' term was so successful. 'SJW' or 'Islamophobe' (for example) make sense. They're exaggerated, but they're rooted in real behaviors. 'Incel', on the contrary, doesn't seem logic. Opposing the social dominant trend (political correctness) requires to be stronger and more independent, which are clearly attractive traits that increase sexual value. On the other hand, it's true that social status influences men's attractiveness, and since being against the social dominant trend takes a toll in social status, that's gonna decrease sexual value. At the end of the day, I don't see how to know whether the final balance is positive or negative (honestly, I have no idea). Using that term seems more like a wishful thinking, something like 'if I am a herd-person, I hope that at least, that gives me some bonus when it comes to fuck'. Go figure.
Women like men of high status, and opposing large corporations is the fastest way to be low status. Women also don't like whimpy soy boy liberals. So you can't passive aggressively go to bat (white knight) for these Hollywood millionaires either. Women won't like you for that, but they will dislike you for not doing that. It's a no win situation for men, so the attractive thing to do is stay out of it and let your society be destroyed. That's why we love the anonymity of the internet where we can fight back and not worry about women.
shareGood. Nothing I like better than a lesson inclusivity. It's what we need as a people.
shareSo Disney is going to poison it's last Golden Goose now?
share