When ‘Captain Marvel’ Became a Target, the Rules Changed | Hacker News Reader

When ‘Captain Marvel’ Became a Target, the Rules Changed

nytimes.com

13 pointsflippyhead11 comments

I really reject this article. It feels like it has a very strong agenda (I say this as a liberal).

Though idgaf about Marvel choosing to make a movie the lead actress describes as a "feminist movie," I entirely understand why that could be offputting to a lot of people to have moral lessons injected into their comic-book movies.

As a movie, it's your obligation to make an emotional experience that delights your audience, period. If you turn around and call that audience "trolls" for feeling preached at, then you're invalidating the experiences of a wide swath of people, which is wrong, obviously.

I have seen absolutely no evidence that “Captain Marvel” is a feminist film or that there are any more or less moral lessons in this Marvel movie than others. In fact, the backlash began before people had even seen the movie and able to make an informed judgement on the feminist or moral content of the film. The controversy has nothing to do with the actual content of the film. The article explains it seems to have started because Brie Larson publicly talked about discrimination and representation in the entertainment industry.

>> I have seen absolutely no evidence that “Captain Marvel” is a feminist film or that there are any more or less moral lessons in this Marvel movie than others.

Well I was referring to the article "Before the film’s release, Ms. Larson told “Entertainment Tonight” that she had spoken with Marvel about making the film “a big feminist movie.” "

>> The controversy has nothing to do with the actual content of the film.

That's a reasonable point. I agree that it's presumptuous to review a movie before you see it.

That said, I think that's distinct from the larger point. I imagine most of those people complaining would still have the same complaint after they saw it (just like they may have about Ghost Busters 2 or Black Panther).

And if they did see it, and then hate it afterwards, I think that's an entirely valid personal experience. Or if they refuse to see it (and indicate they aren't excited to see it), because they felt burned by past movie experiences, that's a valid choice too.

Maybe I'm desensitised from political agendas in films now, but from Captain Marvel I really didn't get a overwhelming feminist agenda that I felt impeded it from being a genuinely entertaining movie.

I'm disappointed about Brie's comment about Wrinkle in Time, however. It really wasn't a great film. The single feminist angle of 'girl saves boy' doesn't make it a great film. All I got was an "evil is a alternate entity you can defeat and bad actions aren't your own fault" lesson. This I thought was quite dangerous for children.

It's unfair to discard people's opinion just because they're white and 40. Just as much it's unfair to review bomb a movie because the actor said something in an interview.

I fully get this article for defending this movie and I'm also upset by the disproportionate ratings we're seeing from critics and audiences (see Orville vs Star Trek: Discovery). But something else stinks about this article.

Fascinating.

This would have been a great volatile trade with Box Office futures contracts, if you knew the nuances of why the ratings were fluctuating like this, which was purely cultural schizophrenia and software updates, while the audience of actual ticket buyers was still numerous.

(The MPAA got Congress to ban box office futures under Obama, the futures regulator was all for it. Now the technology enables free trade of programmatic contracts very easily, and the current composition of the legislator could also help but they aren't necessary anymore)

This reads like rotten tomatoes changed the rules to appease one political faction. While radical intersectionalists launch mob attacks and review bomb everything from books to movies that they don't deem kosher [1], [2]..., companies continually appease only one faction, i.e. radical intersectionalists. I fully agree with the decision to make reviews fairer, but completely disagree with the timing - RT only did it because decision makers in RT are politically resonant with the movie's politics.

Where was RT's response when intersecionalists demonized and review-bombed the SuperWoman movie, for the lead actress' connection to Israel?

[1]: https://www.vulture.com/2018/02/keira-drake-the-continent.ht...

[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/08/opinion/teen-fiction-and-...

The best movies I saw this year were Bohemian Rhapsody (Critics: 61%, Audience: 87%) and Alita: Battle Angel (Critics: 60%, Audience: 94%). Maybe Rotten Tomatoes should be looking into how their critics are reviewing movies instead of banning "trolls"? If you read some of the critic reviews for the movies I mentioned, they are equally tinged with cultural and ideological opinions.

I think this is why conservatives are so up in arms about this movie. The majority of critics lean left and give high ratings to movies that align with their values. But when conservatives attempt to promote their own opinions about a movie, it's censored because "trolls". At this point, I give more weight to an army of fans, or haters, than a small group of critics.

It's also interesting how the NY Times, New Yorker and The Atlantic will write an essay afterwards that give "nuance" to the details of these types of events. Typically with a liberal bias.

> It's also interesting how the NY Times, New Yorker and The Atlantic will write an essay afterwards that give "nuance" to the details of these types of events. Typically with a liberal bias.

I think you need to be more specific than liberal or conservative. They way those terms are used usually correlates highest to "live near a large city" or "lives in a rural area."

I think it is more useful to break it down further than that to get more understanding.

Huh. I never before considered that liberal meant "city dweller" and conservative meant "farm boy". I had always assumed the terms were used to describe the different ends of a value base continuum.

I stand enlightened.

> I had always assumed the terms were used to describe the different ends of a value base continuum.

Outside the US it has a clearer meaning. Inside the US they have lost their meaning.

Not to people who value values.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com