The Four Color Media Monitor

The pretentious writer who brought Carol Danvers down to dismal levels with her own leftist activism gave an interview to the Hollywood Reporter (via Breitbart) where she gushes about her hopes the film's material will serve women's studies programs:

The comic book scribe shares the backstory to the crowd-pleasing cat Goose and weighs in on the movie's most arresting moment: "There are going to be Women's Studies and academic papers written about this scene."

Oh, so everybody's charmed by the inclusion of a pet cat that may be a Skrull in disguise? Heh, I'll bet. As for the study programs, that'll depend on if anybody makes it through without feeling bored. Sure, the film may have taken in $153 million so far, but it could just as easily taper off soon, much like Batman V Superman did a week or so after it opened a few years ago. Man, that's some pretty sugary beginning to a biased interview alright.

The comic book writer — known for her flaming red hair, matching lips, and tattoos — reimagined Carol Danvers in 2012, making her into an Air Force pilot with the military prowess of Steve Rogers and the cockiness of Tony Stark. Carol Danvers had existed in the comics for decades, but it was DeConnick's iteration that won over Brie Larson and convinced her to star in Marvel's first female-led solo movie.

DeConnick recognizes that Captain Marvel is an important moment for the character and for young girls who will get to see themselves reflected onscreen, but notes she maintains a humble attitude as to where she fits in with it all — explaining it's almost like a friend making it big, rather than her own personal success.

Umm, on this, I think we should take a moment to check the following, fascinating information on Breitbart:

The film also made for some interesting gender splits. According to Box Office Mojo, for all the hype of the film being a “feminist” movie, female viewers amounted to 45 percent of the weekend audience. Wonder Woman, on the other hand, racked up a 52 percent female audience. Captain Marvel’s audience also skewed a tad older with its attendees fitting into the 25 and older audience metric, giving the flick a bit older audience than most other Marvel films.

Notably, Captain Marvel did not have any new releases to run against it. Indeed, the rest of the top five all debuted last month.

So less than 50 percent of CM's audience were women or girls, in contrast to the WW film 2 years ago, where the percentage actually exceeded 50. And a lot of the moviegoers here were more adult than children. So, what's that about a reflection again? And how interesting Larson considered deConnick's rendition, which soon sank into revolting masculinized artwork, replete with Mary Sue-ism, as the perfect depiction. What's so wrong with Chris Claremont and Dave Cockrum's work? Let's now resume with what else is in THR's interview:

In a conversation with The Hollywood Reporter, DeConnick also explains the origin of one of Captain Marvel's most crowd-pleasing additions to the Marvel Cinematic Universe: Goose, the cat who maybe isn't quite what it appears to be. She also reveals there was a “crazy progressive” key moment that was left on the cutting-room floor.

Again, I think the cat is a Skrull, but never mind that now. What's eyebrow raising here is the mention of a "progressive" moment. A hint of more divisive politics, perhaps?

Between Ghostbusters, Black Panther, Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel, little girls are getting heroes that look like them, whereas they might have grown up as Batman fans in the past.

We're really good at cross-identifying because we've had to be. I don't think that I viscerally understood what I didn't have until I had it. When women and girls watch Harry Potter, we're not like, "I'm Hermione." Maybe a couple of people are. You're identifying with Harry because he's the hero. He's the protagonist. And we're very good at cross-identifying because we've always had to, and that's doubly so for marginalized communities? I'm a white girl, I've had more options than most, but it's still a thing.

None of us have trouble seeing ourselves reflected in white men because we've always been told that, that is the default. That's the default human being and you can cross-identify. And because of that, we are always centering their pain and their comfort. That's basic humanity. That's how we've been taught to do it.

When we see authentic culture reflecting back at us, we realize that heroism is not exclusively the domain of masculinity. There's nothing inherently masculine about power, or sacrifice, or the power fantasy, or about the sci-fi aesthetic or about the ethical ideals of these superheroes. When you actually see, what you didn't quite let yourself realize you were missing, it is a shockingly emotional experience.

Tsk tsk tsk. Since when did anybody say heroism is just the domain of masculinity? You'd almost think she never heard of Wonder Woman, or doesn't care, despite the interviewer's citation. She's probably never even heard of Will Eisner's co-creation, Sheena, Queen of the Jungle, one of the earliest comics heroines in the Golden Age, or even She-Hulk, co-created by Stan Lee himself in 1980. Or in real life, Amelia Earhart, one of the earliest lady air pilots. Not sure why those don't count. Sounds like deConnick's just sought an excuse to victimologize.

What did you want to imbue Carol with that you hadn't seen before?

We don't have, in our culture, a lot of iconic military women. We can call up a whole range of different male icons. Different kinds of personalities can represent the idea of the military man for us. Pappy Boyington … In the 70s, there was a TV show about him [Black Sheep Squadron, 1976-78]. He was a real-life character, but an emphasis on character. He was a military man, but he was not a rule follower. He was a very American hero. And then we have the Steve Rogers and General Washington.

So what ends up happening is we still think of military women as a stereotype. Usually, she'll have a very by-the-books type of personality. Sort of like Margaret Houlihan in the early seasons of M.A.S.H. A character who is a bit of a nag and no fun. Military women icons become like "Oh, look, it's your mom. Here to stop everyone's fun."

I wanted to make a female icon that was someone you could root for. Someone who could be a very American heroine who was fallible and funny, and had a twinkle in her eye. Every pilot I've ever met loves what they do, you know? There's a kind of delightful cockiness to them. What I wanted in Carol, was someone who had swagger and was fun. And then to play with that a little bit. She's also a little silly. Her sense of humor is a little off. She makes mistakes. I love that about her. I just didn't want her to be simple.

Well gee, in WW's Golden Age origins, she took the role of a military nurse and secretary, and later, was depicted as an intel officer. That was pretty prominent stuff that sounds lost on deConnick. She must've spent too many times watching Private Benjamin starring Goldie Hawn. And what's really funny here is her claim that her take on Carol makes mistakes, because her writing was one of several examples of turning women - and even men - into Mary Sues, devoid of flaws and incapable of making mistakes. That's pretty much the case in the movie, where Carol's even more powerful than every villain, and not exactly depicted making mistakes either, taking away any sense of urgency, excitement or suspense.

Carol has what looks like a cat, but is an alien named Goose in the movie. Where did that idea come from?

In the comics, Goose is called Chewy. I did not give Carol Chewy. Brian Reed did. When I took over the book, I knew from far previous issues that she had a cat at one point. And I was like, "Alright. We're bringing the cat back."

One thing I just really thought was funny was this idea that the cat was really nasty. Because at the time, I had a cat that I adored, but who was just entirely awful. He would hiss at people, and he'd fight with people. I don't know why I loved this cat. He was a monster.

But I played to this idea with Chewy. She was just really nasty and foul-tempered. So after we finished the first year, we were told that the book was going to get a new number one. They wanted to keep me on it. We had to have a reason to have a new number one. So we're like, we're going to send Carol into space. And I was like, "I just spent all of this time building Carol a support system." You know, like getting this group of people around her. It was a supporting cast, and, and now we're going to leave them all and go to space.

What she tells about the cat, confirmed to be alien here, if not Skrull, reminds me of what Larson's performance was described as by more understanding critics - arrogant and frustrating. And nobody asks why the petty concerns about relaunching a book anew, or how this MO didn't contribute to Marvel's downfall from a business perspective. Ah, and then, about that academic stuff:

Was there anything that sort of surprised you, or shocked you in either the filming process or a final scene that impressed you?

There is a scene toward the end, I think there are going to be women's studies and academic papers written about this scene. I have a lot of opinions about it. I think it is bold as hell and sorely needed. And then there's something that's missing from this film that I also think is crazy progressive. But I'm afraid identifying either one of those things would be a spoiler.

It's probably already been mentioned in some of the reviews and other articles, though if I knew what she was talking about, or could remember it clearly from what I'd looked at already, I'd say it, because I don't believe things should be kept secret if they're concerning. Maybe it's that the film's rendition of Carol is as Mary Sue-ish as her own writing, so powerful it could make Avengers: Endgame a doozy if they cast and depict Carol just as they have here.

As disgustingly sugarcoated as the interview is, the trade paper still gave the film a lukewarm review (also via Breitbart), proving how strained some "critics" were in their own takes, all because of the politics behind its making. On which note, Rotten Tomatoes has really done it this time, not only changing their user system to omit the choice between "want to see or not", but also removing thousands of reader reviews because they can't put up with the negativity that's resulted. Even the IMDB hasn't made that kind of mistake with their entry. RT's made themselves an utter embarrassment, enough to disqualify them from being considered a reliable review aggregator.

To make matters worse, Larson's even given signs there's tensions between her and the casts of the Avengers movies:

Brie Larson is back in the hot seat once again with her remarks, as this time while appearing on Jimmy Kimmel, she remarks she hates cast members in Captain Marvel, The Avengers: Endgame and Kong: Skull Island.

While discussing her relationship with Samuel L. Jackson, of which they have starred in the three aforementioned movies together, Jimmy Kimmel questions if they text back and forth and if they use code words.

"Oh, yeah," she says. "We've gotten into this because in the film there are Skrulls. So part of how you know if someone is a Skrull is you ask them personal questions. So we've been rolling pretty deep with that. So there is things that only we know."

Kimmel remarks, "I see and they have to be from way back."

"Oh, yeah," Larson says.

Kimmel adds, "Just to make sure you're not skrulls."

"They deal mostly with people that we hate," Larson says.

"Oh is that right? I won't even ask who those people are," Kimmel questions, with Larson nodding in the affirmative.

"Yeah, we're pretty stealthy about it," Larson continues.

Kimmel asks, "But there are people that you mutually hate?"

"Of course!" Larson replies.

We do know of some already - the white male critics she brought up in earlier press statements. Besides this news, it's also said the Avengers cast isn't happy at the thought they're being sidelined:

The rumor claims that the Avengers cast, or certain members of the Avengers cast, is unhappy with Brie Larson being the face of the MCU going forward. It's said one particular actress - hinted at it being Elizabeth Olsen - feels that they are getting pushed aside, that they are getting treated differently.

Well, whether this turns out to be like Batman V Superman in terms of receipts, chances are the erupting controversy Larson could've avoided will see this film is written off as the mistake it is, and Endgame will be reworked so it doesn't count. For now, if Larson didn't like Carol Danvers' earlier costumes from the Bronze Age, I have to say it's pretty weird she'd think that, seeing as she's been wearing fancy, revealing gowns to conventions, and if she doesn't have a problem there, it's inexplicable she'd have one in a movie.

So anyway, let's be clear. If it hadn't been for Brie Larson's startlingly obnoxious reception towards white male critics, among other ill-advised approaches to promotion, the reception might not have been so furious. But they just had to make such disastrous casting choices, and now it's come back and munched on their rears. Yet it does hint at what was surely to be expected - the Marvel movieverse's caving to social justice idiocy. I don't know what they have planned on their slates next, but if Kevin Feige's conduct says anything, they're bound to get worse in terms of political content finding its way into their films. By the end of the year though, this movie will surely be forgotten and no longer spoken about, which'll be a good thing.

Labels: Avengers, dreadful writers, marvel comics, misogyny and racism, moonbat writers, msm propaganda, politics, women of marvel