#I am amazed by my capacity to understand the dialogues without subs

[kingkangyohan]

So, I have just finished ep 13.

Without subs.

SPOILERS AHEAD

How am I doing? Not well of course.

Once again, Yumi doesn't believe Babi loves her, but it's just her projecting. Love Cell was nowhere to be seen the whole episode.

[thoughts-of-loyalty]

Captain Marvel (2019) Review

So, I saw the Captain Marvel movie recently (on 3/9, as this’ll likely end up posted a bit late) and as the big movie that’s set to bridge the gap between Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame, as well as the big-screen debut of Captain Marvel (not to mention the first Marvel female hero to get the limelight), there was a lot of excitement and hype built around this film.  Starring the titular Captain Marvel, real name Carol Danvers, and set in the 90s - before any film sans Captain America 1 - we’re given a look into the origins of the “Strongest Avenger,” the one Nick Fury sought to call upon at the end of Infinity War to fight against Thanos.

Full movie spoilers and my opinions below.

Synopsis: This film focuses on the origin story, so to say, of the future Carol Danvers/”Vers” (as she’s known among the Kree), in the adventure that sets her on the path to become the superheroine known as Captain Marvel.  Believing herself to be a part of the Kree due to memory loss, she is part of a group tasked with investigating the reported abduction of a Kree agent who was captured by the Skrulls (an alien species capable of mimicking the appearance of any human they view, one which is supplemented by their poorly-elaborated-upon talents at learning a lot about their targets).  Due to events beyond her control, she is separated from her Kree allies and ends up stranded on Earth.  Discovering details about her past life while there, she teams up with a young Nick Fury to discover the truth about her past and how intimately tied she is to the current Skrull-Kree conflict...

The Good:

The Visuals: To be sure, Captain Marvel - like all other big budget Marvel films - is a visual spectacle.  The CGI is very on-point for this film, the fight scenes are generally well handled, and it generally managed to capture the 90s look and vibes that the film is set in fairly well.  The Skrull are also made to look great for their big screen debut, with amazing work put into the transformation scenes, and Captain Marvel’s abilities are a visual delight.

Not Bogged Down by Continuity: One good thing about Captain Marvel in the relative sense is that it doesn’t bog itself down much with a desire to connect itself to the other films.  While some things will certainly make more sense in context of other movies (such as the importance of the power source everyone is fighting over and who exactly Phil Coulson is in relation to Nick Fury), the movie is self-contained enough that one can enjoy it without feeling they need to see everything Marvel-related prior to keep themselves informed.  This is in contrast to, say, Ant-Man 2 or Spider-Man, which require one to have seen Captain America: Civil War to understand all the ongoing character dynamics.

A Straightforward Story: Tying in to the above, but Captain Marvel never loses itself in trying to tell an overly-complex narrative with a million different plot-lines at once.  While there is certainly a twist or two to be had, the movie kept itself focused on the important characters and most of it’s attention was on Captain Marvel and her personal journey.  It told the story it wanted to tell and never did it veer into pointless sub-plots or give focus to truly meaningless characters.

A Lack of a Love Story: In what is something of personal gripe, I appreciate the complete lack of a romance story in this film.  A common criticism that has been directed at many other Marvel films was the inclusion of romance between the male lead and a major female character (usually inspired by one of the comic romances), usually to the detriment of the film as the romances were rather out of nowhere and had little purpose beyond just having one.  This film didn’t have any of that, and while one could make arguments or ship as shippers are wont to do, there was never a “These two are suddenly in love and kissing because there needs to be a romance” moment and I am glad.

The Cast is Well-Acted: A bit of a weird one, I suppose, but most of Captain Marvel’s cast is just as enjoyable to watch as any other Marvel movie’s cast.  I never felt a single cast member wasn’t giving the role their best, and while the dialogue could be cringe-worthy at times, it was only ever due to the script, not the actor/tress in the role.

A Good Message: It was made no secret that Captain Marvel would be a primarily feminist film and have messages about gender equality and women not needing the approval of men to be who they are.  And the film delivered it with only a minor heavy-handed approach.  The female characters were all competent and never eye-candy, but at the same time the movie never used the “machismo men who talk big but are actually pretty lame” trope other less-subtle movies used, all the characters were as competent as they were implied to be.  It was occasionally blunt during some portions of dialogue, but it never felt forced and it carried its message well.

The Bad

A Tonal Disaster: The movie was unfortunately bogged down by an overindulgence, so to say, on comedy.  Now, this in and of itself is not an issue, as Guardians of the Galaxy and Thor: Ragnarok can prove - a movie can be primarily comedic in nature but still have great stories and be serious when they need to (though one could argue both had tonal issues, I wouldn’t deny that).  That said, where this movie most falters is in how it tries to be primarily comedic at times where characters necessarily shouldn’t - for example, there’s a earlier on moment where Carol blasts open a door some time after Nick Fury had done secret spy stuff to open a prior one, making him incredulously ask why she hadn’t done so before and her responding she didn’t want to steal his thunder.  This is at a time when Carol knows there’s a time limit of sorts (the Kree are due to arrive in less than 20 hours to rescue her) and Carol is learning about events that may intimately involve her and her lost memory, but they let the cast wait around so they can have this joke.  This is around the point I started to worry for the movie, as well, because I could tell the movie would be willing to let it’s mood go to waste for a quick joke.

A return to basic villains: One common issue held with many of the earlier Marvel films was the very weak villains in their movies.  They could look cool or be menacing, but Loki was pretty was really the only one who was complex for the longest time.  It took until arguably either The Winter Soldier or Age of Ultron to buck this trend and give us memorable or complex villains.  This continued for most of Phase 3, with their villains being complex, sympathetic at times, or otherwise memorable presences.  Spoilers: the Skrulls were build up as that, but plot twist, the Skrulls aren’t the villains, the Kree are.  And the Kree do nothing to establish themselves as memorable villains - you could arguably have even forgotten two of them were main antagonists in the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie.  The only relatively memorable one is Yon-Rogg, Carol’s mentor, and the two spend so little time properly interacting after he’s revealed as a villain that any complexity he could have is never properly utilized.  For that matter...

The Supreme Intelligence is kinda pointless: Tying into how the Kree are an unfortunate return to basic villains, the Supreme Intelligence - the Artificial Intelligence ruler of the Kree - is an exemplar of this aspect of the Kree in this movie.  The Supreme Intelligence is something of a recurring presence in this movie (though I use that term lightly, given that it only appears before Carol for a grand total of five minutes if I’m being generous), and as the guiding force behind the Kree, it is technically the main antagonist of the film (Yon-Rogg is the most present of the Kree antagonists, but his actions are ultimately guided by the Supreme Intelligence).  As noted above, though, Carol and the Supreme Intelligence only spend about five minutes together, and only half of THAT time is spent as them on opposing sides, where it is little more than a generic overlord-emperor type, giving us a nothing driving force for the antagonists as a whole. Which is unfortunate, because...

The Kree are very underdeveloped in general: This is an issue because for a chunk of her life, after receiving amnesia, Carol considers the Kree her people and becomes part of a Kree task force.  While somewhat understandable that she’d be willing to stand against them as they’re responsible for her predicament in various capacities, the movie spends so little time developing the relationship between them and the other Kree.  Neither she nor the named Kree she battles seem to hold any strong emotion about coming to blows, to the point that they could have been replaced with a random Kree task force she never knew and nothing would have changed.  This goes double for both Korath and Ronan, who were incredibly flat villains in Guardians of the Galaxy - any hopes one might have had that they’d receive stronger characterization was misplaced, as they’re just as one-dimensional as before.

“Subverting Audience Expectations” ruins the Skrull: Many have (supposedly?) praised the Skrull for their role in the movie as a red herring antagonist who are actually sympathetic, with many bringing back the old praise of “This movie is great because it subverts audience expectations” that popped up during Star Wars: The Last Jedi.  I have a much longer rant about that, but that isn’t the issue I mean to address here.  And before anyone gets on my case, I have no desire to argue “the Skrull are ruined because they don’t follow their comic book selves;” the MCU is perfectly allowed to reimagine the Skrull as they desire, and if they wish to make the Skrull sympathetic, then that is their prerogative. In this case, the issue is that they’re so intent on making the Skrull red herrings that the Skrulls pre-reveal and post-reveal are essentially entirely different beings.  Before the reveal, Skrulls are making an proactive effort to discover what they need, capturing a Kree agent and luring Carol in with deception to read her mind and learn where to go, and when they get to Earth, they immediately install themselves so that they can best discover what they need to know - which isn’t necessarily bad, because that can still be played as sympathetic but willing to do whatever is necessary to get what they need to survive.  But post-reveal, the Skrull we knew as antagonists are almost entirely different beings - Talos and his “Science Guy” are almost comic relief after the truth is revealed, albeit with a few moments of competence (for a prime example of their newfound incompetence, it’s revealed the Skrull couldn’t find Wendy Lawson’s lab because their “science guy” didn’t realize the coordinates they were trying to figure out were directing them to space).  Talos in particular goes from “Leader of the Skrull remnant doing whatever is necessary to save his species and his family” to “Leader of the Skrulls who wants to save his people but never wanted to hurt anyone while doing it.”  Sure, Marvel subverted our expectations, but when your red herring is essentially two different characters before and after the reveal, it’s no wonder audiences ended up surprised.

Nick Fury backstory is now a joke: Now, this in and of itself isn’t an issue - there’s no rule stating Samuel L. Jackson NEEDS to be badass in every movie, or we can’t have a “Younger Nick Fury who is comedic due to being new to it all.”  Like I noted above, Nick Fury is generally competent - as are most characters in this film, even the Skrull post-reveal - and does well enough in his role in the film.  But there’s an elephant in the room: how Nick Fury lost his eye.  Namely, he lost his eye to Goose the Cat/Flerken after the cat decided is was being messed with and scratched his eye.  Yes, you read that right.  Nick Fury’s lost eye was due to him essentially getting scratched by an alien in cat form he pissed off.  And no, it wasn’t “rampaging alien form that hit him with a massive claw,” no, it’s “small house cat claw to the eye.” Now, if it isn’t clear why exactly it’s bad, let me explain it in a bit better detail.  This isn’t just an issue of “We wanted to subvert audience expectations, so Nick Fury lost his eye in a funny way because no one saw it coming” - though it still is that, too.  Rather, the issue here is that what happened here is now canon, and is retroactively canon for the whole of the MCU up to that point.  Nick Fury justifying why he hid secrets to Captain Freakin’ America as because “Last time I trusted someone, I lost an eye.” - that’s the story he tells everyone because he’s too embarrassed to admit the truth.  That big reveal at the end of the Winter Soldier, where he reveals he had a backup retinal scan of his scarred eye because he was just that prepared in case someone tried to lock him out of the S.H.I.E.L.D. systems by removing the retinal scan of his good eye?  Thank goodness he had that eye scarred by a cat, otherwise, there’s no way that plan would’ve had a chance of working later on.  Him calling Coulson, his most loyal supporter, “His good eye?”  Thank goodness a cat clawed out his eye so he could make it clear how much Coulson meant to him with that distinction. That’s the big gamble you take when you retroactively introduce a character’s backstory in a prequel - everything that happened there is now canon to everything since.  And now Nick Fury’s backstory in the MCU will forever be “He lost it to an annoyed cat,” because Captain Marvel decided that it was better to make a joke of it.

And now, for a minor gripe: This is a bit of a lesser example, but y’all recall what S.H.I.E.L.D. stands for?  Don’t recall off the top of your head?  You could rewatch Iron Man, because it tells you in recurring joke form - Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforcement, and Logistics Division.  Someone really should shorten that, right?  Something the characters note anytime the full name is brought up.  And at the end of the movie, Coulson tells Pepper - who is going to recite it by name - that it’s S.H.I.E.L.D. for short now. If only Coulson was around back in the 1990s, where Nick Fury makes reference to how he’s “Nick Fury, S.H.I.E.L.D.” and namedrops S.H.I.E.L.D. a few times. *ahem* Yeah, it’s a minor continuity error in the grand scheme of things, but it was something I figured should be mentioned because that was something that I noticed and wanted to bring up.

Final Verdict

Captain Marvel is a... competently-made movie.  And I’m really sorry to say it, but that’s the most I can say about it.  It’s well-made, well-acted, tells a simple enough story to understand that isn’t bogged down by continuity, and it has good messages in it’s narrative.  But it loses so much of itself due to having an inconsistent tone throughout, and it’s plot goes from decent to bog-standard around the time it decides to “Subvert audience expectations” and give us some of the most boring villains this side of the Phase 3 MCU films.

Would I recommend others to watch it?  Somewhat.  It’s not exactly incredibly essential viewing for the MCU and I don’t think it’s really all that good, but it’s not a terrible movie, I can understand why one would like it despite all it’s flaws (people can learn to overlook nearly everything), and it does add to the MCU enough that it is worth seeing if you want to see all the Marvel films.  But if you want a good female superhero film with a feminist message, you’re better off watching Wonder Woman.

And now, to address the elephant in the room pretty much every male who didn’t enjoy the film needs to deal with:”You didn’t like Captain Marvel because the main character was a woman and it had a pro-women message and you must hate feminism.”  It’s a comment that tends to get directed at males who don’t enjoy films with female protagonists, regardless of quality of the film (see: Ghostbusters) or reasons for disliking the film (albeit not without reason, to some degree - after all, those biased against something would be much harder on it than something they aren’t even if their flaws are much the same).  Not helping matters were that trolls DID review-bomb its Rotten Tomatoes score before it even had a full day under it’s belt - which the movie didn’t deserve, it should be judged on it’s own merits, not targeted by insecure men angry about there being a Marvel movie starring a female hero.

And I don’t expect to convince anyone who isn’t willing to believe me otherwise.  I can point to all the video games (Metroid, Portal, Resident Evil, etc) I love that star female protagonists, or that I considered the Wonder Woman film to be excellent, and it won’t convince anyone.  If you think I’m sexist garbage because I’m a male who didn’t like the film, my reasonings above or thoughts below won’t probably won’t convince you.

Here’s my views on this, however: Marvel had taken much too long to give us a movie primarily starring a female hero.  Marvel has many great female heroes, Captain Marvel included, and any one of them would have been as worthy of a film as a male counterpart.  The MCU dropped the ball repeatedly when it came to giving their female heroes films - Black Widow would’ve been great for a film but never got made and the omnipresence of Scarlet Johansson has made many people not care; Scarlet Witch got primarily confined to Avengers-focused films; The Wasp is very enjoyable but still has to share screentime and billing with Ant-Man; Gamora was probably the best and still those films still spent more time with Star-Lord, not to mention she was killed of in Infinity War without certainty of her return, leaving that “Third Guardians movie focused on her” up in the air.

We finally have a Marvel film that’s starring a female, and it’s primary message is about how feminism is important - and it’s good we’ve finally got one, but it took us until Phase 3 to finally get it and the film was marred by so many other issues I would struggle to call it good even with its positive qualities.  And that’s not the quality it deserved - not as a Marvel film, as a Captain Marvel film, or as a feminist film.  And anyone who would say “Who cares if it was not all that good, we’ve finally gotten a feminist superhero film from Marvel”?  You’re settling, and you shouldn’t.  What we deserved isn’t what we got, and by defending it, you’re essentially saying that Marvel can get away with low-quality movies so long as they can say “Sure, but fans were asking for this and we gave them what they wanted.”

You want a film with a female superhero protagonist that has a feminist message that is, above all else, good?  You should watch Wonder Woman.  And I know how there’s all the issues with the DCEU as a whole, or the rivalry between Marvel and DC fans and the former who wanted this movie to be good so they could be proud Marvel made a feminist hero film that was better than DC’s.  And kudos to you who support brand loyalty.  But DC did what Marvel didn’t for the longest time, and for all of the DCEU’s issues, Wonder Woman had very few issues on its own, and the issues that were present were very minor compared to everything it had going for it.  Wonder Woman was what Captain Marvel wanted to be, and what it ultimately failed to be.

[someincompetentgirlcomics-blog]

Competent boy comics

Post 3 of 3

Those readers with a keen eye for footnotes will have noticed that in past posts (via said footnotes) I allude to the idea that there are some “state sanctioned” exceptions to the New Zealand competent boy comics hegemony. That is, I consider there are a small number of comics that don’t fulfil all the criteria but that the competent boy gatekeepers appear willing to include in their various ‘New Zealand comics’ conversations, events and publications.

I am referring essentially to the practice of tokenism; when an organisation or group, on their own terms, incorporates a limited number of ‘others’ and in doing so appears inclusive and progressive. And I think in the competent boy version of ‘New Zealand comics’, tokenism is rife. I will illustrate this contention with some specific examples, but first want to discuss generally the concept of tokenism as I understand and utilise it in this post.

Tokenism is more ambiguous than the definition suggests. While it is no replacement for true diversity, good things can come from it. For those tokenised, the benefits include visibility which can lead to connection with others and/or genuine opportunities. For the ‘New Zealand comics’ audience, token works do provide at least the glimmer of a world more exciting and interesting than that of the competent boys and a basis for further exploration should individuals be so inclined.

Tokenism can be deliberate or unintentional (I suspect in the case of competent boy comics it is mixture of both) and does not preclude genuine skill on the part of the individual being tokenised, nor genuine admiration on the part of those ‘doing’ the tokenising. So I do not say that the comics I am about to discuss are not worthy of attention, nor that they are not truly loved by individual competent comics boys (and others)[1].

Tokenised objects and the individuals who make them may be admired intrinsically but within the context of a dominant discourse this is not their only worth. They are also valued for their representative purpose. Tokenism places a burden on individuals and/or works to represent all others like them.[2] There are some typical ways by which we can recognise tokenism via this representative function.  These include (in no particular order):

●      When a lone ‘other’ is asked repeatedly to speak for their ‘group’ and/or about being a member of that ‘group’.

●      When the same named individual appears as the ‘representative’ over and over again; when instead of involving many qualified and diverse participants, organisers limit involvement to one or two who are canonized as the most worthy or expert.

●      When the activity or output of the canonized ‘other’ resembles that of the organisers; it can be comprehended to some significant degree against the values of the dominant paradigm. With competent boy comics I perceive there are two non-negotiables in this regard. These are ‘success’ (the comics are published or win awards or some celebrity says they like them) and the ability to draw in a traditional, things-look-like-things kind of way.

I think all of the above attitudes and behaviours are evident within ‘New Zealand comics’ as promoted by the competent boy comics discourse. I’m going to illustrate this contention with examples regarding women, LGBQT, and punk comic makers (there are others).

First up, punk comics. Whether ‘punk’ is the right word is debatable, but by it I mean comics that are obviously ‘made’ by someone and rejoicing in this. Comics that are a bit brutal, a bit silly, and a bit ugly-beautiful; that don’t care about being universally liked or commercially successful; that are a paradoxical mix of deep-deep- love and don’t-give-a-fuck-ness. The kind of comics I like.

It is interesting that despite all their hard work to make comics as bland and respectable as possible, competent comics boys do cling tightly to romantic notions of the comic as defiant, outlaw and a bit punk. Therefore whenever they organise anything ‘New Zealand comics’ they tend to include a token example, and fairly often this example is Oats.

Oats is a gang of friends who made a lot of comics in the mid-nineties and who make a few comics now. It is my comics gang and it is difficult to describe, coming to me as a series of impressions and feelings - mischievous giggling, the green glow of the photocopier, the smell of Waikato Draught, the furtive handing out of comics at parties, fun, love, and productive rebellion. The competent boy comics discourse has though a different version of Oats. It goes pretty much like this:

1.      Oats is a group with an outsider DIY punk-type aesthetic;

2.      Stefan and Clayton’s comic ‘City of Tales’ is amazing and here’s a City of Tales comic to illustrate;

1.      Some other Oats comics/comic makers exist including xxx;

2.      A few quotes, nearly always one from me (if the Oats exposé is in written form).

The above narrative, while not exactly untrue, has been put through the competent boy comics filter. Thus it fulfils a bunch of tokenism criteria:

●      First is the ‘canonization’ of Oats and its repeated use as the lone ‘representative’ of punk comics (there are an infinite number of other amazing and diverse New Zealand punk comics and comic-makers that bear no resemblance to anything Oats and are hardly ever acknowledged).

●      Next is the ‘canonization’ and repeated use of named individuals and their works as the lone ‘representatives’ of Oats (I love Stefan and Clayton with all my heart, and City of Tales is amazing - heartfelt , weird, funny, sad, brutal, beautiful - but there is a whole lot of other Oats stuff).

●      Third is that the ‘representative’ comic ‘City of Tales’ can be comprehended by the competent comic boys against their own success criteria. It’s ugly but obviously intentionally and skilfully so (Stefan and Clayton can ‘draw’), it’s ‘successful’ (was in the Small Press Expo for example), and you can get it in ‘proper’ book form. (There is much more to City of Tales than this, but these are the parts the competent boys generally ‘get’.)

●      Finally are my own experiences in regards to the way I am inevitably asked by competent comics boys to speak for Oats or about Oats (this is not the same in other comics sub-cultures where I am asked about all kinds of things). I have mixed feelings about this. I do want the world to know about Oats, and as I said tokenisation brings with it some good things. It is tiresome though to always be approached as a ‘representative’ of other comic-makers and never really as a comic-maker yourself.

When it comes to LGBQT comic-makers, the tokenised, canonized, lone representative individual-of-the-moment is Sam Orchard. Sam does many great non-competent things in his comics, my favourite being the way his characters talk to the reader (I do love a comic that knows it’s a comic!) But as with Stefan and Clayton, Sam can draw things-that-look-like-things and his work is ‘successful’ (available in ‘proper’ books and bookshops). And again, a whole lot of other LGBQT comic-makers are ignored. This country’s proud history of radical feminist lesbian cartoonists for example, is consistently and upsettingly invisible in any competent boy comics ‘New Zealand comics’ narrative.

Competent boy comics tokenism is probably most stark in relation to women comic-makers. Like the radical feminist lesbian comic-makers of the previous paragraph, the discourse renders most female cartoonists invisible, acknowledging only one or two specific individuals. This is forcefully illustrated by the following handy real-life anecdote: “Hey!” I said recently to a competent boy comics gatekeeper, “why weren’t there any women in that New Zealand comics thing you organised?!” Without a trace of irony, he replied “Sarah Laing wasn’t available”.

Sarah is my friend. She is also the most recent of a small number of canonized female comic makers whose work somehow satisfies the competent boy comics criteria and who are therefore considered ‘important’.[3] In this capacity Sarah is often called upon to ‘represent’ all women, a lone female amongst the competent comics boys or featuring on that most blatantly tokenistic of initiatives, the ‘women in comics’ panel.

I find lots of non-competent beauty in Sarah’s work; it is unflinchingly honest and there are those lovely scratchy lines and bright blobby colours. From a competent boy comics perspective though, her work is ‘successful’ (published in proper books and magazines) and she can draw things-that-look-like-things. Like Stefan and Clayton and Sam, her work meets the ‘right’ criteria. The gatekeepers ‘get’ it, therefore they deem it important, include it in ‘New Zealand comics’ and feel like they are inclusive, progressive and ‘right on’ for doing so.

But I don’t think the competent boy comics status quo is ‘right on’. I think it is stink and I yearn for an alternative. Instead of tokenism I’d like to see ‘New Zealand comics’ as a genuine celebration of diversity, one based on respect, dialogue, and learning and laughing about different comics, comic-makers, comic-making approaches and values. Fckn Oats.

[1] For my own part, in any competent boy comics context I am drawn to the things not-quite-like the others. I consider these comics to be the most interesting and they are the ones that don’t give me a stomach ache.

[2] The issue of ‘representation’ is particularly infuriating and funny given the minutiae separating the work of one competent comics boy from another. Apparently though, these (to me barely perceptible) differences are important signifiers of personal style and unique voice.

[3] I count four ‘important’ women in twenty years (full disclosure - I’m not one of them) and they’ve been canonized chronologically, one after the other, definitely not all at once. I know this because I am observant but also because of all the messages I got from competent comics boys telling me we really must include xxx in Three Words, that no New Zealand women’s comic anthology would be complete without them. I say, yes those women are amazing. And so are the 60-odd others in the book.