this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
70 points (86.5% liked)
Shows and TV
405 readers
185 users here now
Open discussion of Media / Shows / Television
- Be nice
- Don't go off topic
- Don't rage farm
Other communities
We are still open to mod application, please comment on this post: https://lemm.ee/post/40675177
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hopefully they work on making her character not painfully boring.
There was so much focus on those people hating the character for being a strong woman, it kinda overshadowed the fact that marvel did such a crap job with the character.
I was hyped for captain marvel at one point, then saw the movie and thought “wow, this is ass”.
I agree. When I watched Captain Marvel all I could think was "well, this green lantern movie sucks, too.".
Make her have more fun or something.
While the sequel is definitely not the best Marvel film, her character was a lot better than in the first one. I hope they continue to write her like that.
I haven't seen that one, it's Marvels, right? Maybe we'll check it out tonight. I thought America was a fun character in Dr Strange.
We keep meaning to watch Blue Beetle, too. Those movies are like the B tier in my mind.
Edit. Watching it. I forgot about Khan, and thought she was America. My bad.
It's... better than Capt Marvel I guess.
They somehow found an actor for the villain that has even less facial expressions than Capt Marvel. I'm impressed by that.
Fury is reduced to comic relief. That's annoying to watch.
Not to mention that any genuine criticism was attributed to being "sexist"...
Creating some bigoted reason why people dislike stuff rather than admitting the stuff wasn't well made is the new deal.
They wrote as a male character with a female skin rather than a woman, so she can't pull off the arrogant jock without coming across as unlikeable as its not a widely socially accepted archtype for women. It's hard enough for charismatic male actors to do that successfully, yet alone Larsson who is not the most charismatic of actresses and starting further behind.
Think about how brash sports women are received (Serena Williams, for example) vs. brash sports men (say any number of them). It's sexist but it is what it is
Really hard for anyone to pull off arrogant jock when the writing and story is that bad
This is true, but the level of hate directed at Larrson around how unlikable her character was and the constraints it places on the story of her character arc are all down to that one choice.
If they made her likeable approaching the level as the big three, far more people would have enjoyed the film, and they would have had far more options when it comes to her character arc that would have improved the story.
It's sexist, but it is still true that women are not judged the same for men when it comes to displays of overt confidence
Plus Brie Larson has no charisma and comes off as arrogant by default. They should have recast her.
Alien did that with Ripley and everyone loves her. The character would be boring even if they were male.
If you think Ripley is a jock least of all an arrogant jock it shows how little you understand her character. Jesus's, what part of her character in alien screams jock? She's not even listened to until it's too late, it's like the polar opposite of a do all never wrong Captain Marvel in MCU. Have you even watched alien?
Jock characters aren't interesting. At least not interesting for the MCU crowd.
Really? So nobody likes jocks like Steve Rogers or Thor?
Whole point of Ragnarok was Thor learning not to be so arrogant and rely on others, its why it is so good as it offers real peril and a lesson to learn for him. He doesn't even beat the villain head on, he cheats and gets someone else to do it, at great cost to him and his people.
Too often modern heroes want to be Superman, but without what makes Superman even remotely relatable, weakness to kryptonite or a stronger villain that offers actual risk to him.
People didn't like Jock Thor. Himbo Thor became much more preferred. Also, Steve Rogers was never a Jock character. He was the one who started out being bullied by Jocks.
And then Rogers became the ultimate Jock, that's kind of the central point of his character, nerd becomes jock, wish fulfillment for the audience. That story is only really present for a small part of the first film, hes a an out and out jock for all most all of the rest of his screen time.
Its almost the reverse for Thor, he is relatable for part of Ragnarok, then all of that character development is undone for Love and Thunder, as they tried to turn him into a copy of Quill. Quill is an arrogant buffoon who is as often wrong as he is right, and only works in some of the films where it has actually decent writing. Even in those films he only works because of the supporting cast, which is missing in Love and Thunder.
Rest of Thors time, he is just a plain Jock , especially in Endgame, where is he a plain old jock but with a Rocky training montage.
That's actually a good point.