Captain Marvel movie spoiler talk

[Mutant 77]

Or it is a very honest and frank story about PTSD and the fear of failure, that some critics love. .

It's not a dramatic story about PTSD, LOL. That's only one thrown away scene at the beginning. It's just a popcorn action/comedy movie in the same league of many MCU flicks.

[JKtheMac]

It's not a dramatic story about PTSD, LOL. That's only one thrown away scene at the beginning. It's just a popcorn action/comedy movie in the same league of many MCU flicks.

Clearly there are a few of us here that see this movie very differently. If you watch the whole movie with that in mind you may perceive things differently. The real issue here is that popcorn action movies don’t necessarily translate well to character driven stories. Most action movies are about the big villain and their plot to spread their particular brand of evil. The hero’s motivation is primarily stopping the villain. The villain becomes an obstacle to overcome and their plots and henchmen create lesser obstacles.

Character driven stories don’t really have external obstacles, or rather they do, but they are actually eternal manifestations of the protagonist’s internal obstacles. So IM3’s internal obstacles are related to Stark’s fears. The very first words are words to the effect that ‘we create our own demons’. That is designed to underline that this is about inner demons.

The external manifestation of that fear is how a scientist’s work (Hanson) was being subverted and used against the world. This is apparently being done in the name of the Mandarin who it turns out is a lie. So the bad guys AIM and Pearce are creating their own demons too. Literally. So Stark is fighting his own internal fears while fighting a terrorist which is another way of saying fear monger, who has been invented to make the whole nation fight imaginary demons.

Look at Extremis. It is a clear analogy for Stark’s suit. Instead of being an external technology it’s an internal one. So Extremis is a way of telling a story about Stark and his technology at a remove. By overcoming the people using the internal technology he is at the same time overcoming his own reliance on his external technology.

This is how writers work. They build the structure of the movie from the premise. If the premise is external then in an action movie the protagonist can just hit things. The standard way is to create an antagonist that is a dark mirror version of them, so the conflict can have emotional and character resonance.

If the premise is internal, we already have the emotional core but we need the physical element to ground it and make it meaningful to more than just the protagonist. In superhero stories the writers need things for the hero to hit. They have to come up with something else that represents those internal fears. Everything is done in reflection.

[Mutant 77]

The real issue here is that popcorn action movies don’t necessarily translate well to character driven stories.

Well, the X-Men movies manage to do that in a very successful way. They are adult, bleak and brilliant superhero movies.

[WebLurker]

Well, the X-Men movies manage to do that in a very successful way. They are adult, bleak and brilliant superhero movies.

Pretty sad to see most "X-Men movie" threads here get mostly "I am so glad we're done with Fox and can get a 'good' series now."

[Jabare]

to help clear up some lies and misconceptions

[JKtheMac]

Well, the X-Men movies manage to do that in a very successful way. They are adult, bleak and brilliant superhero movies.

I wasn’t saying it wasn’t possible, just that there is a tension between the two goals. To be honest I would have to analyse the X-Men movies to know if they have external or internal obstacles. There is a theory of screenwriting that asserts that all movies are about two people interacting and that everything else serves this. The X-Movies over recent years seem to be primarily about Xavier and Magneto interactions with everyone else in one or other of their orbits. That may indicate they are plot driven unless the stories are specifically focused on one of the characters per film. Open to suggestions here.

To return to the Captain Marvel example, her obstacles do appear to be internal in that they are mostly about expressing herself and finding herself in order to fulfil her potential. That doesn’t categorically make it character driven but it certainly seems to based on the Skrulls being an external reflection of identity issues, and the Kree being an external reflection of repressing her self expression. Mar-Vel seems to be an external representation of her ideal self, someone who has escaped the influence of the Kree and has chosen a path to follow. So the clues are there.

Far from being one of those ‘dark reflection of the hero’ movies, it seems to be completely different in structure to most MCU origins, which are always seeking to find that sweet spot of plot driven story with significant character focus, or character driven with significant plot obstacles.

As to formula there is increasing evidence now that we can use computers and maths to analyse scene breaks and objective measurements of action or motion from frame to frame, that cinema has always had a very standard formula that conforms very well across almost every genre and decade. Which suggests that when people say ‘this seems formulaic’ or ‘the structure seems original’ they may be talking about things other than act structures and pacing, even when they refer to those things.

[Jabare]

[Powerboy]

That's interesting, some retcons that still work in continuity and some that don't. Of course, as the video points out, the MCU has gradually been retconning itself in several movies before Captain Marvel so this is nothing unique to this movie.

[AJBopp]

So Point 1 - The Avengers Initiative Idea: Not a plot hole or retcon. When Fury got the idea, he was at best a mid-level agent, and a mediocre one at that (at least within the extraordinary context of SHIELD), which the events in Captain Marvel propelled him into taking his job more seriously. It's not a retcon that it took 15 years to get promoted to a position where he was able to act on his idea.

Point 2 - The Avengers Name Origin: Not a plot hole or retcon, it's an in-story explanation of something that had never been explained up until now.

Point 3 - The SHIELD acronym: Not a plot hole or retcon. Didn't feel like an "origin" explanation in Iron Man. We knew for quite awhile the organization has been around for decades. Who believes no one has ever used such an obvious acronym until 2008?

Point 4 - First Alien Invasion: Not a plot hole or retcon. In Avengers Fury is clear that the threat posed by Asgardians was on a different level than anything known by Earth before. The events of Captain Marvel, as Fury experienced them, do not contradict this. Plus, he now knows that Captain Marvel cannot be relied on to protect the Earth from every invasion.

Point 5 - Nick Fury's Eye: Agreed.

Point 6 - Nick Fury's Backstory: Not a plot hole or retcon. The video makes enormous assumptions about whether Fury and Howard Stark could possibly know each other, and under what circumstances.

Point 7 - Tesseract History: so why is this included in a video about retcons?

Point 8 - Why Fury Used The Tesseract In Avengers: Not a plot hole or retcon. See Point 4. The threat posed to Earth in Thor was a scale of magnitude greater than in Captain Marvel, and there was no Captain Marvel now to be relied on. Perfectly consistent.

Point 9 - Coulson's Knowledge of the Kree: Seriously? Not a plot hole or retcon. You're going to argue you definitively know what a guy forcibly brought back from death remembers? In a comic book reality? Seriously?

I really dislike youtube for this sort of thing. I guess it does say something very positive about the MCU, though, that through all these years and movies no significant plot holes or retcons can be identified, only made up.

And, for that matter, the MCU is a shared universe, not a single story, so plot holes are by definition not possible. Every movie is given its own latitude to a large degree, and that is to the MCU's credit.

[Powerboy]

So Point 1 - The Avengers Initiative Idea: Not a plot hole or retcon. When Fury got the idea, he was at best a mid-level agent, and a mediocre one at that (at least within the extraordinary context of SHIELD), which the events in Captain Marvel propelled him into taking his job more seriously. It's not a retcon that it took 15 years to get promoted to a position where he was able to act on his idea.

Point 2 - The Avengers Name Origin: Not a plot hole or retcon, it's an in-story explanation of something that had never been explained up until now.

Point 3 - The SHIELD acronym: Not a plot hole or retcon. Didn't feel like an "origin" explanation in Iron Man. We knew for quite awhile the organization has been around for decades. Who believes no one has ever used such an obvious acronym until 2008?

Point 4 - First Alien Invasion: Not a plot hole or retcon. In Avengers Fury is clear that the threat posed by Asgardians was on a different level than anything known by Earth before. The events of Captain Marvel, as Fury experienced them, do not contradict this. Plus, he now knows that Captain Marvel cannot be relied on to protect the Earth from every invasion.

Point 5 - Nick Fury's Eye: Agreed.

Point 6 - Nick Fury's Backstory: Not a plot hole or retcon. The video makes enormous assumptions about whether Fury and Howard Stark could possibly know each other, and under what circumstances.

Point 7 - Tesseract History: so why is this included in a video about retcons?

Point 8 - Why Fury Used The Tesseract In Avengers: Not a plot hole or retcon. See Point 4. The threat posed to Earth in Thor was a scale of magnitude greater than in Captain Marvel, and there was no Captain Marvel now to be relied on. Perfectly consistent.

Point 9 - Coulson's Knowledge of the Kree: Seriously? Not a plot hole or retcon. You're going to argue you definitively know what a guy forcibly brought back from death remembers? In a comic book reality? Seriously?

I really dislike youtube for this sort of thing. I guess it does say something very positive about the MCU, though, that through all these years and movies no significant plot holes or retcons can be identified, only made up.

And, for that matter, the MCU is a shared universe, not a single story, so plot holes are by definition not possible. Every movie is given its own latitude to a large degree, and that is to the MCU's credit.

I'm a bit iffy on Point 8. The Kree were about to obliterate the Earth so that's an ultimate threat. However, it could be argued that Captain Marvel never told Fury about that part.

Good observations on Point 6. The video maker does make huge assumptions about Fury's backstory and they hinge on an assumption that Fury knew Howard Stark and that he was already high up in the organization by 1995, which, as you said, is an assumption as far as I remember.

Point 9: Yes, Coulson's memory was so foggy that one could assume anything about what he remembered but it would just be assuming.

I do think the MCU is not some haphazard thing. It still amazes me that I know people personally who seriously believed right after "Infinity War" that Spider-Man and the Black Panther, among others, were going to stay dead. One person genuinely had the attitude that, sure, BP was the most successful MCU movie at that time and sequels were planned but, hey, someone else comes along in another movie and kills him off and things don't go as the people making the BP movie planned. Let's just say that nothing about human idiocy surprises me anymore.

So I think they were meticulous about making sure nothing in "Captain Marvel" contradicted future events. This is not a religious "There are no contradictions" when there are glaring contradictions right in front of you. This is more people making assumptions.

Also, adding in backstory is not a contradiction or a retcon. For example, there was a Batman story where the writer had Bruce and his father get into an argument the very day his parents died and going to the movie was a family thing to make up for it. Some people will scream "Retcon. You are changing the story." But there is nothing in the origin that says that could not have happened. It's additional information.

On the other hand, Captain America being frozen and returning later was a retcon although a retcon that was explained away by another retcon of having other men substitute for Cap in the late '40s and '50s to give the illusion Cap was still active. But still clearly changing history because if you read those '50s stories, it is clearly Steve Rogers. Still the greatest retcon in comics history.

But "Captain Marvel" is more in the Batman category.

[Jokerz79]

I'm a bit iffy on Point 8. The Kree were about to obliterate the Earth so that's an ultimate threat. However, it could be argued that Captain Marvel never told Fury about that part.

Good observations on Point 6. The video maker does make huge assumptions about Fury's backstory and they hinge on an assumption that Fury knew Howard Stark and that he was already high up in the organization by 1995, which, as you said, is an assumption as far as I remember.

Point 9: Yes, Coulson's memory was so foggy that one could assume anything about what he remembered but it would just be assuming.

I do think the MCU is not some haphazard thing. It still amazes me that I know people personally who seriously believed right after "Infinity War" that Spider-Man and the Black Panther, among others, were going to stay dead. One person genuinely had the attitude that, sure, BP was the most successful MCU movie at that time and sequels were planned but, hey, someone else comes along in another movie and kills him off and things don't go as the people making the BP movie planned. Let's just say that nothing about human idiocy surprises me anymore.

So I think they were meticulous about making sure nothing in "Captain Marvel" contradicted future events. This is not a religious "There are no contradictions" when there are glaring contradictions right in front of you. This is more people making assumptions.

Also, adding in backstory is not a contradiction or a retcon. For example, there was a Batman story where the writer had Bruce and his father get into an argument the very day his parents died and going to the movie was a family thing to make up for it. Some people will scream "Retcon. You are changing the story." But there is nothing in the origin that says that could not have happened. It's additional information.

On the other hand, Captain America being frozen and returning later was a retcon although a retcon that was explained away by another retcon of having other men substitute for Cap in the late '40s and '50s to give the illusion Cap was still active. But still clearly changing history because if you read those '50s stories, it is clearly Steve Rogers. Still the greatest retcon in comics history.

But "Captain Marvel" is more in the Batman category.

Fury did say in Captain Marvel he had been riding a desk the last few years his desk job could had been at Triskelion where Stark, Peggy and other Shield higher up met so it's possible he could had met him there in reality field agents rarely meet the big bosses that's something office personal do like Fury was according to CM.

Also giving the dangers associated with Coulson remembering the procedure that brought him back it's very likely when creating Tahiti Nick had the Kree erased from his memory.

[Killerbee911]

I do think the MCU is not some haphazard thing. It still amazes me that I know people personally who seriously believed right after "Infinity War" that Spider-Man and the Black Panther, among others, were going to stay dead. One person genuinely had the attitude that, sure, BP was the most successful MCU movie at that time and sequels were planned but, hey, someone else comes along in another movie and kills him off and things don't go as the people making the BP movie planned. Let's just say that nothing about human idiocy surprises me anymore.
.

I was laughing during the snap, I couldn't help people gasping and going no no no like these guys were actually dying. Props to MCU on that aspect we take it for granted that people aren't jaded comic fans have seen multiple heroes come back from the dead,So I get it the first time it happens to them they actually believe . I wish Marvel had balls troll people I would love if they could have shown Shuri, Brother Voodoo and Miles and act like they moving with those characters instead of the originals

[Divine Spark]

Fury losing his eye like that shouldn’t give him trust issues.

Heard that Mar-Vell have to go through a blood test before getting to the Tesseract.

[WebLurker]

Fury losing his eye like that shouldn’t give him trust issues.

All he said was that he'd lost his eye by trusting someone, which does fit the letter of what we see in Captain Marvel (besides, Fury was already misdirecting people as to how he'd lost his eye even before Captain Marvel ended.

Heard that Mar-Vell have to go through a blood test before getting to the Tesseract.

Not in the movie.

[XPac]

I was laughing during the snap, I couldn't help people gasping and going no no no like these guys were actually dying. Props to MCU on that aspect we take it for granted that people aren't jaded comic fans have seen multiple heroes come back from the dead,So I get it the first time it happens to them they actually believe . I wish Marvel had balls troll people I would love if they could have shown Shuri, Brother Voodoo and Miles and act like they moving with those characters instead of the originals

One of the people I wish didn't get snapped was Spider-Man, simply the trailers for his next movie sort of ruined the illusion. I would have preferred it if the next solo after End Game wasn't someone ashed, so at least the illusion could be somewhat maintained for those few people who did buy into the whole thing. Very minor complaint, but I think it would have made sense.