#ESPECIALLY CAUSE WATCHING IN 3D IS DISTRACTING TO ME....HAVING THE OPPOSITE EFFECT OF WHAT IT SHOULD BE...SO I TEND TO MISS...STUFF

[aspiestvmusings]

MY REVIEW: CAPTAIN MARVEL

MAJOR SPOILERS FOR “Captain Marvel” (2019) FILM & MCU (A:E4) FILMS

SO ONLY READ IF YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY OK WITH BEING SPOILED BEFORE SEEING THE FILM. IF YOU DON’T WANT SPOILERS, TURN AWAY...RIGHT NOW! BECAUSE I’M LETTING THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG! I TALK ABOUT THE FILM, AND THE END CREDITS SCENES & EVERYTHING! 

Here are some of the bits from the early screening I got to see earlier this week: 

The biggest laughs from the room came during the scenes where the 1990s nostalgia kicked in for the audience (I’d say most of the people around me were old enough to remember those days, I did not see many teens being at the event that evening)  - the dial-up internet (taking forever to load) & during certain Goose scenes/moments. 

For me, personally (as someone old enough to remember the 1990s, which is when the film takes place - I was a kid/teen back then) it was simply a trip down on memory lane. The music! (how it was incorporated in the film made me think of GotG & the mixtapes!!), the little details - Blockbuster, Radio Shack, payphones, pagers, dial-up internet, arcade games, popular 1990s toys...  And I am guessing that “nostalgia” plays a big part in me actually finding the film quite likable. Because I am not a superhero film fan. Nor am I a fan of blockbuster films. 

What made the film for me? The 1990s music! The 1990s feel (nostalgia). The cat... Goose, the cat. Goose & Fury! Carol & Fury. The humour...cause unlike Yon-Rogg says to Veers...humour is good! Right from the start...with the Blockbuster crashing & the security guard in the car... to the 1990s references...to Goose... to... a lot more. And yes... every time a 1990s pop-song was incorporated into a scene I thought of GotG and the 1970s/1980s music  - Quills mixtapes.�� 

Note: If Captain Marvel/Carol & GotG/Peter should ever meet...in one of the MCU universes, then can I request a dance-off scene, or a karaoke contest or just mix-tape (80s vs 90s) contest between them? In whatever form? haha

The man who started it all: Stan Lee. We open the film with the Marvel sign/logo being made of images/scenes of Stan Lee. The pictures will the letters that make up the logo. And then the dedication... to him. 

The Stan Lee actual cameo scene happens pretty early in the film. It’s during the public transport scene. When Carol is looking for the shape-shifting aliens (the old lady from the trailer) she is looking at everyone  as she moves along. there is someone reading “the paper” (actually a script..that little fun nod was too much to reveal right away) & their face is not seen. When the man “peeks out” from behind the “newspaper”, we see that it’s Stan. But what makes the scene is the way “Carol” softly smiles at the man. #Truth

Carol Danver’s/Captain Marvel’s Kree-name Vers (veers... very Dutch) actually comes from her Earth-name. Her name tag was broken into two pieces during the crash 6 years earlier, one part Carol Den... was in Maria’s possession as “the only thing that survived the crash” & the other was in the possession of Yon-Rogg and it said “vers” (end of her last name), and that’s the origins of that name. 

There are several meant-to-be-for-fun-and-laughs scenes. One of them involves Fury & someone else talking about the characters names. Mar-vell or Marvel? One word/name or two words/two-part name? Other characters, too, had names that are well-known from history/literature, and just with adding a dash in the middle. e.g. Minerva Min-Erva

The film is filled with little nods, and details, and small things. There were too many to list them all. But the looks said it all. The props said it all. The set dressings/props (pinball machines, lunchboxes, baseball balls, payphones, pagers, 1990s pop-culture references everywhere) and little looks and facial expressions...that say more than any dialogue would. I don’t know how the younger audience will feel about those things, but those of us born before 1990, who can remember 1995 (the film is mostly set in that year... 6 years after 1989) & the 1990s in  general will most likely become kinda nostalgic & remember their childhood/youth when watching the film. So if nothing else... the film has that... The film is one big 1990s meme. I’d say that’s the most accurate description. 

And I liked how it showcased that it's important to pay attention to detail, and background. Like the scene where Carol finds/sees the photo of the moment before the fatal flight, and focuses on the background... finding herself on the photo. Behind others... 

Next to other details were small details connecting this film to the larger MCU. Nods & mentions of things & people we’re familiar with - the Tesseract, Ronan, Coulson... etc).  

Goose, the cat. For me, someone who is not familiar with the comics & not aware of MCU (outside the films IronMan has been in), that twist was unexpected. When some characters early in meeting Goose suggested that it’s not a cat, but a Flerken (an alien species that has long octopus-like-tentacles coming out of its mouth & can eat anything...no matter the size... and material), I did not expect that to be the truth. So... when it turned out that the Skrull being “afraid” of the “cat”  was not just scenes made to be funny, I quite liked it. Yeah, that’s not a sweet cat..all the time. When Goose wants, she can eat anything (Tesseract) or anyone (bad guys) - it’s like Gooses inside can fill entire universes in it.. 

So... Goose ended up being the shapeshifting alien... and in a way “foreshadowed” the twist reveal about the skrulls - that not all is as it seems, and you can’t judge a book by it’s cover. Goose being not a cat as we saw her, but a flerken was a nice “hint” at how the truth can change with new info added...

Which makes me now think that there is one more possibility of how Thanos can be beaten in MCU/AE4. Goose can just eat him... and all’s done? ;)

The Skrulls: Now...that’s another twist that will most likely be unexpected to others like me, who are not familiar with the Marvel comics/cinematic universe. Though it’s not as unexpected, and there are kind of hints throughout the film telling us that the narrator (Yon-Rogg) cannot be trusted to tell the truth, it was still quite interesting to find out the real story. The Skrulls motives turned out to be not what Jude Law’s character wanted Carol think they were. That was a nice “twist”. And it tied all into Vers training..where Yon-Rogg had been manipulating her mind...in order to keep her true powers under control (think with your head instead of heart - and though I generally don’t agree - I always say mind/facts before heart/feelings, then in this case its fitting... for this character’s story). But...in general... that twist/reveal kinda meant a sudden & bland end to the Kree/Skrull wars storyline idea. That was..IMO... a missed opportunity, and a letdown. It shouldn’t end with “that was it? and there was/won’t be nothing more to it?” 

More 1990s thoughts: the aliens & the secret underground labs & the vaults filled with shelves of files... all made me think of The X-Files...so much. Those visuals... so much like moments from Mulder & Scully’s investigations into “secret government projects”. I found those visual parallels quite... similar. 

Captain Marvel/Carol Danvers vs IronMan/Tony Stark parallels. This was one of the things I personally saw in the film. In Ironman/Avengers we’ve seen & heard it being implied by some characters that Tony is nothing without the suits & the toys/technology. In this film similar thing was suggested about CM/Carol and her “suit” (the powers she literally holds in her hands/palms). But both assumptions are incorrect. Just like Carol proved that she is even more powerful when she isn’t limited by the “in the box” thinking, same applies to Tony - he is more than his suits. I found those parallels to be... interesting & telling. Both characters have humanity, and strength. They both get up every time they fall/fail (as demonstrated, visually, in the montage scene of Carol getting up...every time she “failed”...through the years). So... just like Jude Law’s character is wrong in this film about Carol. certain characters in MCU are also wrong about Tony, when they make similar claims. IMO

I even kinda liked the way the film was set up. How it started with her/Vers unable to sleep (”nightmares” - memories from the time she wads Carol) & knocking on her “friends” door early in the morning.... and later we learn that she used to do the same back on Earth, when Carol used to wake up Maria early in the mornings...to go flying...when they were pilots. To the way the flashbacks/memories from another life were incorporated into the present day events (via “memory extraction”, via dreams, via old photos, via “daydreaming”...) It was kinda fitting for this film and story and character. 

And I liked Carol & Maria’s (and Carol/Monica) friendship/scenes. And all that. The part of the story that revealed who she used to be, and what really happened six years ago... what was that plane crash all about, who was her “mentor” - Mar-Vell and what she really did and what was she working on (that secret technology), who she herself was/is, what’s the deal with skrulls and the technology they were after, who were the team she’d been part of for the past 6 years... etc. There was a lot of content fit into those two hours. 

Other than that...there were also many many unexplained things. And many unanswered questions..and even new questions were raised that fans are trying to find answers to now. Goose’s fate - what happened to Goose - how will Goose’s non-appearance & non-mentioning in the past be explained in future films? The Tesseract and it’s fate - what we know from past MCU films & what we saw in this film... how do these stories fit? ... to name a few bigger ones. The film messes with the MCU timeline & it’s possible that  it’s full of continuity mistakes, because unless some things are explained in future films, then the name Avengers Initiative, the tesseract’s location, SHIELD’S beginning & naming time, and other things... are confusing. 

THE “RANTY” PARTS (IN SEPARATE POST), LINKED  HERE & HERE & HERE

THE END: 

The film ends with Carol using all of her powers ( she was fighting with one hand behind her back until now), not being restricted (to think she has to control or hold back her powers...so she’s able to use them all...and be extremely powerful). And we see her blast off to space... taking the skrulls spaceship...  far away... somewhere in the universe...

And then we...maybe...find out what happened to Fury’s eye. Not really.... cause the official report is made up. As Fury is typing on the computer... and we see him type something... important.. regarding the MCU... Coulson enters with a box of glass eyes...for him to choose (to replace the eye he “lost”, and reveals the official story... but Fury doesn’t really confirm or deny..so I am not completely sure if it’s not just a cover story, and the backstory to the eyepatch is the other one... the one with the cat that the scene implies to. 

Pros: 

The 1990s music & props - nostalgia! (for those of us who are over 25 years old)

The cat!/Goose! (because I like cats) 

Nick/Carol “friendship”

The CGI (as with most current films, the VFX is good quality)

Cons: 

Possibly...Messing up the MCU timeline (Tesseract, Ronan...etc) Though it can be explained in A4/future films via time travel and/or alternate universes. It’s not great, but they can make it believable & not a continuity error.... that it looks like at this point. 

The marketing (I have issues with marketing in general. The hollywood sjw-marketing strategy that does no good - focusing on the cover of the book, not the storytelling & character (development) 

People, who might like this film: 

people, who grew up in the 1990s (kids, teen, youth). The 1990s nostalgia hits you 

people, who like cats 

people, who like (1990s) music being strongly incorporated into scenes

people, who want just a typical mindless blockbuster entertainment from their cinema experience 

People, who most likely won’t like this film that much:* 

comic book fans/people who are familiar with MCU & Marvel comics 

people, who are not fans of continuity issues in film/TV 

people, who prefer the film versions to honor the book/comic canon (not change names, characters, events, locations...etc) 

* have issues with some things 

AND I’LL FINISH WITH THE TWO END CREDIT MCU SPOILERY SCENES 

1. MID-END-CREDIT SCENE

Avengers Headquarters. Captain, Black Widow, Bruce Banner & Rhodey in a room, looking at the device (Furys pager that Carol upgraded in the CM film to have a wider signal range...of at least a few galaxies), trying to figure out what it is & how it works #wedontevenknowwhatthisis

2. POST-CREDIT SCENE: 

Nick Fury’s office. His name  plate on the table. Goose, the cat jumps on the table. The cat looks like its about to “throw up a hairball”... and sure enough...the cat “spits out” something... the blue cube...aka Tesseract. The end. 

ETA: REVIEWS BY OTHERS: 

Brent Hankins @ SpoilerTV   (this review describes the film the best, IMO)

[apdo703]

Assignment #3

Jamie Wiedmann

I really enjoy the rule of tenths because I love the drama of having a subject against a vast background, as I sort of did for Week 2’s assignment unknowingly! I think it works really well for scenery or larger subjects, but the drawback to that is you don’t always get the detail you would with a closer photograph. I also liked the framing technique a lot; it is so creative and lead to some fun photographs. I liked coming up with different ways to frame a subject, it also changes the way you might take a picture, such as the angle you take it from, the framing makes it look very realistic, like an image you would see in your daily life, looking through a crowd of people or a window.

Overall I found this assignment much more challenging than Assignment 2, but particularly the dynamic diagonal was the hardest for me because I didn’t quite know what would fall into that category and it was hard finding preexisting conditions or objects I could use to manufacture the diagonal shape. Also finding objects to photograph for the rule of tenths with a primarily plain background was challenging as well.

I disagreed with John Berger from the very first paragraph, as I had always considered photography to be a form of art. However as I read further to understand the main points of his argument, I found myself agreeing partially with him, but mostly disagreeing. Berger is not wrong that many more museums are dedicated to paintings, sculptures, drawings, etc. however modern art exhibits are becoming more commonplace. Additionally, even if the resulting work of art is not a photograph, people have been using photographs in art for decades. I also disagree with the argument that a photo is not unique. As we saw with our last assignment, lighting and exposure can alter an image entirely. The shadows, colors, and organization of the objects will never be the same again. Iconic photographs capturing scenes from history (riots, celebrations, performances) will never happen again. The angle from which the photograph is taken, how small or large the subject is, where the subject is positioned also make the image unique, as we saw from assignment 3. Yes, locations do stay the same and they do not belong to an individual (usually), a field or hiking spot will still exist tomorrow and hopefully a century from now, but the minute details that make a photograph unique do change. This paragraph also reminded me of a documentary my art philosophy class watched on Andy Goldsworthy. Goldsworthy goes out into nature and creates beautiful arrangements and manipulations with the objects around him but they are not meant to last, part of the beauty in some of the pieces is watching them be absorbed back into nature. The only way anyone besides him gets a chance to see his work is via photographs he takes. I agree the more something is done the less meaningful it becomes, however meaning is entirely subjective. 100 photographs of a child’s first birthday or a wedding or graduation are different from 100 photographs of a car or household appliances. Also, the beauty in photographing daily life objects that are somewhat meaningless is the fact that the photographer can make them beautiful using lines, focus, lighting and various other elements.

I understand where Berger is coming from when he says composition should not enter into photography, there are many aspects of a photograph that are out of the photographers control, especially when photographing outside a studio. In a painting, everything from the size and color of an object are under the painter’s control, in photography one must work with objects that already exist. However a photographer can have manipulation over many elements in a photograph. Just because composition is challenging or limited does not mean that it should not enter into photography, so I disagree with his statement. Being able to manipulate models, alter the arrangement of objects, is part of what makes photography an art form. By saying one should not be allowed to influence the image is not pointing out why photography should not be considered art, but simply ignoring or discrediting one of the reasons it already is considered art.

Prior to this assignment I mostly only took pictures when I was moved to, pictures with friends and family, pretty scenery or really good food. I like to keep my picture-taking spontaneous and try my best to capture the emotion of the moment then move on and experience it, before coming home and immediately looking at my pictures. I’d say I had a good mixture of unplanned photographs and planned ones. When I take pictures with my friends sometimes we choose where/how to stand, like if we are at a specific place or scenery, or where the lighting is best, other times there is not as much planning. When I am taking pictures of objects like food I do plan more, I usually consider the lighting and arrangement of the objects as well, although I often find the less planning and fussing the more I tend to like my pictures, which helped me notice that just because I can take unlimited photographs of an image does not mean that I usually do, as I often go with one of my first attempts, I do not take many photos of the same thing. I had always been aware of things like balance, perspective, symmetry, and so on, but I feel like they are easy things I often forget that could enhance my photographs even more. This assignment challenged me to think about all 10 basic elements before taking a photograph, and I was able to include more of them in my photographs. The assignment also made me consider things like the dynamic diagonal and the way space is broken up in the image and how that space is filled or not filled.

Rule of thirds: My subject in this photo was the book I was reading. I found an empty table and used the grid lines on my camera to line it up with one of the intersecting points. I wanted a fairly plain background to help the book stand out more, but I wanted a slightly visible pattern in the wood to create more interesting texture so the background was not completely solid. There was light coming in from a window that created a gradient effect where it was lighter on the side opposite the book, which formed a nice balance. I angled the book intentionally but wanted to keep the table straight. I took this photo from directly over the table looking down as opposed to straight on from the side because I wanted to show different shapes you get from a different perspective. Originally I put the image in grayscale because it enhances the effect of the light and the white pages of the book in contrast to the dark wood of the table, I also like that being in black and white unifies the elements of the image, making everything seem less distracting as I wanted to highlight the book itself. However after reviewing the document I realized my goal was to capture the moment of curling up with a good book and I think using the natural brown colors in the image conveys that more.

Rule of tenths: It was a rainy evening when the sun was setting and the lights were starting to come on in the buildings and I was actually driving home, but it looked really pretty outside. I was not going to use this originally because it turned out pretty messy, but the more I looked at it I liked the way the water on my windshield distorts the shapes of the buildings and the lights as well, it’s an effect that is harder to get by only using your phone. I put this one in black and white to enhance the lighting and in an attempt to create stronger, more defined lines due to the image being out of focus. My goal was to capture the setting of a dark, rainy city.

Diagonal: My subject was the houses and wires. I took the photo from my viewpoint where I was standing, slightly diagonally off to the side, to capture the natural angle formed by the houses, and use the wires, which were hanging at an angle to accent it. I placed the houses at the bottom of the frame to draw attention to the top half of the houses as well as the space and lines formed by the roof and wires. I put this image in black and white mainly because I did not like the color combination of the sky and the fronts of the houses, and by getting rid of the distraction of the colors the diagonal lines are more apparent as well. The sky was grey and cloudy so it caused the light to disperse and shine from the sky as a whole instead of one specific point like on a clear day, which provided a bright background against the buildings and dark wires. I also like the marbled effect grayscale has on the clouds in the sky.

Frame: I wanted to use a real frame to frame my subject but in a more creative way. So I stood in front of a plain background to make the subject pop more and held an empty frame out in front of me. I wanted it to look like a 3D photograph, like the subject is coming off the page, or out of the frame. I also put this one in black and white because the colors clashed, but also to highlight the shadows adding to the 3 dimensional feel of the image. I tilted the frame because it was more natural to hold it that way; I wanted to convey a more relaxed version of those famous portraits I’ve seen where the subjects look very upright. I was inside so I turned the lights up so it would mirror a photography portrait session with artificial lighting. Looking back, I wish I could have fixed the shadow on my forehead from the frame but I tried several angled and, because the light was coming from the ceiling instead of straight on, or various angles as in a photo shoot, it was hard to avoid.

Middle Placement: I liked the idea of using the sun in the middle because it was so condensed and defined, which has not been happening lately due to cloudy, rainy weather. I used the weather and time of day to my advantage because my goal was to depict the sunset and the nice weather in between several days of bad weather. I remembered that objects should be towards the bottom of the frame, so I put the sun fairly low in the image to help show the expanse of the sky above. While the sun is technically the main subject, the additional subjects, the road, trees, and sky play off each other to emphasize each other without distracting from the sun. The distance allows the viewer to get a sense of place and time. I took this photo straight on to get a realistic representation of what my view was from where I was standing.