Page 1 of 2

Captain Marvel

Posted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:27 pm UTC
by OP Tipping
I had a good time. Funny lines, some surprises, very pretty. If I had a complaint it would be that some of the fight scenes were confusing, and some of the music seemed out of place.

I managed to avoid all trailers and most of the spoilers, went in pretty cold, though I couldn't avoid learning that it would feature a
Spoiler:
de-aged Coulson and Fury. CTTOI, it seemed as though they didn't need to do much to Fury except to put hair on and add a bit to the jowel
.

I can't help think it would have been better to have this as the first MCU movie
Spoiler:
in SPAAAAACE
rather than
Spoiler:
GOTG
. But I guess they know what they're doing.

I gather that the plan is for Danvers to be a leading figure in Phase 4. Seems to me that it would be easy for them to mess that up, given Larson's performance style.

Something that I don't yet understand is how
Spoiler:
the tesseract got into space.


Edit: Also, where is
Spoiler:
Goose
in 2019? And how come Fury didn't call on Danvers for help during thr events of the first two Avengers movies?
Yay at my countryman Ben Mendelsohn. I've loved him since Metalskin in 1994. He seems to have been typecast as a villain over the last decade or so
Spoiler:
which is somewhat subverted in Captain Marvel
.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:23 am UTC
by Angua
I enjoyed it. The opening Stan Lee studio logo was the first time I've heard a british audience clap.

Spoiler:
Obviously the fact that the Kree wiped her mind was a twist that was coming, but I didn't see the twist of having the Skrulls be refugees from genocide which I liked. Goose was great. Nick Fury was hilarious, it was nice to see a bit of Coulson back. Glad her friend was able to do some awesome piloting at the end, rather than just being along for the ride.

Also, love the subtle MacGuyver shout out with the finger print and paper clip.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:20 pm UTC
by sardia
The mcguffin is a bit weird to me.
Spoiler:
is the Core that blows up the special thing to save the kree? Or is it the tesseract? Because first I thought the tesseract was the thing to grant Carol her power, but it turned out to be the alien rocket engine. Was the core really important to save the kree, or was it just a way to get to space?

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 8:38 pm UTC
by Angua
Spoiler:
I think they special piece of tech they are chasing after is the engine with the ability to absorb energy from the tesseract/core (core seems to be the name they call the tesseract in the movie).

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:42 pm UTC
by maybeagnostic
The trailers had me really worried because they really didn't make the movie look very good but those scenes actually came off pretty well in the theater. My only complaint is that it was perhaps too funny for a movie that wasn't a straight up comedy. About he twist(s):
Spoiler:
The skrull possibly being good or at least persecuted was a neat twist, I guess, but it fell a bit flat for me as I've never read the comics. I could have really used a lot more background on the kree and skrull to get invested enough to care about the twist.

I also don't think either of their goals hold up in retrospect. I think the Kree wanted the engine specs but then why did they kidnap Danvers? Is she somehow like the engine in being able to harness the Tesseract's power remotely? How come she can still do that after Thanos gets it? Then, I guess, Talos knew the Tesseract and his family were in the same place but didn't know where? Why didn't those kree just fly off in search of a new home six years ago like they do at the end of the movie? I guess they need Danvers for something but I have no idea what.
They also overplayed the cat's cuteness a bit. Sure, its cute but ain't no puppy (yeah, I'm more of a dog person :D )

Overall, I liked it more than I expected.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:35 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
maybeagnostic wrote:
Spoiler:
I also don't think either of their goals hold up in retrospect. I think the Kree wanted the engine specs but then why did they kidnap Danvers? Is she somehow like the engine in being able to harness the Tesseract's power remotely? How come she can still do that after Thanos gets it? Then, I guess, Talos knew the Tesseract and his family were in the same place but didn't know where? Why didn't those kree just fly off in search of a new home six years ago like they do at the end of the movie? I guess they need Danvers for something but I have no idea what.

Spoiler:
The Kree were seeking the Tesseract, though they may not have even realized it. They wanted whatever the hell Mar Vell (I forget her human name, doesn't matter) was working on and would figure out their uses for it later - ship propulsion, weaponry, a really kick-ass air fryer, whatever.

The Tesseract was on a cloaked ship they couldn't find, and being accessed remotely somehow by the ship Dr. Vell made. From the Kree's point of view, the closest thing they had to a lead on the research was Danvers, who absorbed *something* from the conduit when it exploded.

They didn't go in to detail of what they needed, and I don't think it was that necessary, but there's a couple of options - could be they were trying to figure out how to use her like a battery, could be they were trying to figure out how to replicate the process for their own soldiers, could even be that they were trying a long-term memory dump like the Skrulls were trying in the short term, the Kree wanting whatever information they could get.

At any rate, it likely quickly became obvious to the Kree that it wasn't an ongoing process, but a one time imbuement. Doesn't matter what happens to the Tesseract after Danvers shot the engine and absorbed the power - whatever had been stored in there was in her now. How long it will last is anyone's guess - could have a timer that is in danger of running out, could be effectively limitless in that if she used everything she could pump out every day for the next 80 years she still wouldn't use it out - like using an atomic reaction to power a night-light.

So, Skrull-dude knew that his family was on or near Earth, but didn't know where - I don't believe the Tesseract being there was something he was that aware of or really even cared about.

Now, you ask "Why didn't those kree just fly off in search of a new home six years ago like they do at the end of the movie?"

I assume you mean Skrulls and are referring to the ones on the ship orbiting Earth.

Lots of reasons. One being that fairly obviously they knew some of their people, like Talos, were out there and knew where they were. If they left, there's no reasonable way they could expect to leave a message that only Skrulls could receive but no one else. Especially without a final destination in mind.

Another reason being - I mean, stick yourself behind the wheel of a Destroyer. Do you have the slightest clue on how to operate it? Do you know how to handle it in ocean storms or how to identify when you're about to run aground? Do you know how to find islands in the middle of the pacific? Same thing here - the people on board looked very much like clueless civilians. On top of that - I have no idea how scanning and the cloak works. Could be that moving the ship will drop the cloak, could be that using the jumpgates puts them on the radar of the Kree, Xandar or Skitari, or any number of hostile alien races that exist.

And assuming they figured out how to leave a message only Skrulls would even know to look for AND figured out how to fly the thing AND figure out how to stay below everyone's radar - where the hell are they going to go? The only places that'd exist on their computer are places that have been categorized by the Kree. Wandering the universe to find an habitable world that the Kree haven't touched may be something they don't know how to start doing on their own. It also wasn't clear what weapons, if any, the ship had and if they knew how to use them. Or replenish the ammunition.
Or fuel.

And that's before we get in to wondering if there was some sort of ongoing transfer between Earth and the ship that sustained them as I didn't see much in the way of food.

At any rate, having some of your military-minded family members return along with a glowing Superman take care of a lot of the self-protection and communication issues, possibly the ability to even pilot the damned thing too, and give you enough to actually get moving, to start looking for a new place to live.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 2:27 pm UTC
by Zohar
I liked it! I didn't know too much about her so most of the plot wasn't predictable. I agree, the opening credits sequence with Stan Lee had me teary. The movie has tons of plot holes, and the deaging of Samuel Jackson and what's-his-face isn't seamless, but I found it lots of fun, and I loved her character.

Spoiler:
I particularly liked the very Indiana Jones moment at the end when Jude Law is "PROVE YOU CAN FIGHT ME WITHOUT YOUR POWERS!" and she's all "Fuck you"

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:37 pm UTC
by JudeMorrigan
OP Tipping wrote:Something that I don't yet understand is how
Spoiler:
the tesseract got into space.

Spoiler:
Howard Stark recovered it from the Arctic after it was lost at the end of First Avenger. It's not explicitly stated, but Lawson presumably got it from him for Project Pegasus through her position with the USAF.

As far as the movie itself went, I enjoyed it. Including Larson's performace. I'd say I don't know where the reports of her supposedly wooden acting were coming from, but I'm afraid I know *exactly* where they were coming from. [A place of profound misogyny]

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 4:59 pm UTC
by Zohar
JudeMorrigan wrote:As far as the movie itself went, I enjoyed it. Including Larson's performace. I'd say I don't know where the reports of her supposedly wooden acting were coming from, but I'm afraid I know *exactly* where they were coming from. [A place of profound misogyny]

It was bad enough that Rotten Tomatoes had to shut down preliminary reviews and people got upset about their "first amendment rights". It was really shitty.

And I agree, she was great!

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 6:37 pm UTC
by Angua
I could kind of see why someone might find it a bit wooden to start, but I feel like that was on purpose because of the whole 'control your emotions as a warrior thing' (this is literally the first 5 mins of movie, not a spoiler). She was made to be wooden, and when she breaks from that training then she emotes just fine.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:56 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
Saw it this weekend. Enjoyed it enough, no specific complaints, didn't feel as wowed as I had hoped for (as I have from previous Marvel movies), but that might be more to do with changes in my own emotional state between then and now than the quality of the movie itself. In particular, the big climactic fight at the end when she really exercises her full power (which is pretty much spoiled by the trailers) didn't fill me with a surge of awe and might the way some scenes in, say, Ragnarok or Doctor Strange did. But again, that could just be me, not the movie.

One thing I didn't understand about the plot:
Spoiler:
Why the Skrulls or Kree, who are both already interstellar civilizations, care about the "lightspeed technology" Mar-Vell/Lawson was developing. I mean, knowing that that's actually powered by the Terreract, an Infinity Stone, gives reason why they would care about that, but they speak of it as though it's the fact that it's an FTL drive that makes it interesting, when surely these interstellar civilizations jumping between planets in their day-to-day operations already have FTL technology.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:58 pm UTC
by Zohar
Pfhorrest wrote:One thing I didn't understand about the plot:
Spoiler:
Why the Skrulls or Kree, who are both already interstellar civilizations, care about the "lightspeed technology" Mar-Vell/Lawson was developing. I mean, knowing that that's actually powered by the Terreract, an Infinity Stone, gives reason why they would care about that, but they speak of it as though it's the fact that it's an FTL drive that makes it interesting, when surely these interstellar civilizations jumping between planets in their day-to-day operations already have FTL technology.

Spoiler:
I didn't get that either because it seemed like they're moving at FTL speeds just fine...

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:33 am UTC
by SecondTalon
Pfhorrest wrote:Saw it this weekend. Enjoyed it enough, no specific complaints, didn't feel as wowed as I had hoped for (as I have from previous Marvel movies), but that might be more to do with changes in my own emotional state between then and now than the quality of the movie itself. In particular, the big climactic fight at the end when she really exercises her full power (which is pretty much spoiled by the trailers) didn't fill me with a surge of awe and might the way some scenes in, say, Ragnarok or Doctor Strange did. But again, that could just be me, not the movie.

One thing I didn't understand about the plot:
Spoiler:
Why the Skrulls or Kree, who are both already interstellar civilizations, care about the "lightspeed technology" Mar-Vell/Lawson was developing. I mean, knowing that that's actually powered by the Terreract, an Infinity Stone, gives reason why they would care about that, but they speak of it as though it's the fact that it's an FTL drive that makes it interesting, when surely these interstellar civilizations jumping between planets in their day-to-day operations already have FTL technology.
Spoiler:
You ever play a 4X Space game with spacelanes? No ability to just... go from one star to a neighboring one, or even a distant one, but instead a circuitous route involving eight or nine unrelated systems, something an enemy can exploit by taking and holding the middle link, splitting your empire in half?

That’s why. The Marvel Universe runs on spacelanes. They don’t have FTL engines, they just have the ability to access stable wormholes.

Mar Vell made a direct path FTL engine.

At least, that’s my understanding.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:09 am UTC
by Pfhorrest
Thanks, that makes sense and clears things up.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:27 pm UTC
by Zohar
I mean it makes sense, but I don't think it's explicit enough in the movie.
Spoiler:
We've never seen anyone have a substantial problem moving around in space in the MCU.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:46 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
Saw the movie this afternoon. I enjoyed it, though I had a nagging sense of puzzlement about why people were saying Brie is "wooden".

Zohar wrote:I mean it makes sense, but I don't think it's explicit enough in the movie.
Spoiler:
We've never seen anyone have a substantial problem moving around in space in the MCU.


Spoiler:
Let's see.

Asgardians use the Bifrost to get around, which used to require the entire rainbow bridge and the sword and needed large amounts of dark matter to get Thor back to Earth for Avengers and then needed the Tesseract to repair it, but in Infinity War, turned out to just need Heimdal's sword or Thor's new axe. Several times, Thor got stranded somewhere waiting for the Bifrost, and it seems like it had some unstated limits originally (only accessing certain locations, mostly around the 9 realms).

Loki uses various portals and cracks in the universe to get around, which only let him go between specific locations, which happen to be the ones the plot needs him to be able to connect, so that's fine...

We don't know how Thanos' forces travel interstellar distances - the Invasion of New York used the Tesseract, but Infinity War doesn't go into a lot of detail.

The Guardians, and apparently everyone else in the galaxy, use the jump point network - which is why it takes them so many jumps to get to Ego. this also explains how ships are able to intercept each other - rather than having the entire volume of space to search, everyone's clustered around the jump points, so you only need to find the right jump point, rather than having to search the spaces between.

What we haven't seen is people traveling to the actual middle of nowhere.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:15 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
Zohar wrote:I mean it makes sense, but I don't think it's explicit enough in the movie.
Spoiler:
We've never seen anyone have a substantial problem moving around in space in the MCU.

Spoiler:
Guardians 2? Fleeing the first world and having to get to the gate, or when Rocket and Yondu took the several hundred jumps at once and started physically warping? Thor 3, where they had to take a specific portal to get off world and back to Asgard?

They have problems getting around all the time. Thor's gotten around this by having Bifrost at his beck and call. Everyone else has had to slog it like peasants.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:31 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
I think we're getting general enough that this isn't Captain Marvel spoilery anymore. (Non-spoilery summary for those who don't want to read the spoilers: my spoilered plot confusion question raised further questions about the general state of interstellar transport in the MCU, and it's been suggested that perhaps all transport is either teleportation ala the Bifrost or else jump gates like we see in Guardians of the Galaxy, and nobody ever actually flies through open space faster than light that we've seen so far).

In the end of Ragnarok and the start of Infinity War, the Sakaaran ship with the surviving Asgardians etc on it seems to be plodding along through space when it is intercepted by Thanos' ship. I suppose they could be traveling between jump points at slower than light speeds? Though in Guardians, it really seems like ships just push a button to open a jump gate wherever they are, and don't have to travel between them.

(Now that I think about it, the whole escape from Sakaar hinged on going through pre-existing portals; nobody thought "let's just grab a space ship and fly through space to Asgard", which suggests that maybe the nobody-has-normal-FTL thing is correct, and that maybe that Sakaaran ship doesn't even have a Guardians-style jump drive, since they needed the Devil's Anus to get to Asgard and couldn't just push a button to jump at will. If that's the case, and that ship is slower-than-light only, then I guess the Asgardian refugees were planning on taking a really long time to get wherever they were going?)

In Infinity War, the ship used by Thanos' minions that Tony/Peter/Strange stow away on seems to be actually moving through space on its way from Earth to Titan, not jumping between gates. Of course, in the comics, the "planet" Titan is actually the moon Titan of our very own planet Saturn, so if the movies are sticking with that and just not saying so, maybe that ship was just plowing at fast-but-not-faster-than-light speeds from Earth orbit to Saturn orbit.

In the Endgame trailer, Tony appears to be on some kind of ship slowly making its way through space, too slowly for his survival odds according to the narration. Perhaps his ship just has a broken jump drive, so he's stranded in empty space somewhere? But if Titan really is just our own Titan, and that's the last place we saw him, then it seems like he's really quite nearby, on a cosmic scale, and it shouldn't be such a big deal; it should take about an hour for a message to reach Earth at lightspeed, and then Thor can just Bifrost over and grab him.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:32 pm UTC
by pseudoidiot
SecondTalon wrote:
Zohar wrote:I mean it makes sense, but I don't think it's explicit enough in the movie.
Spoiler:
We've never seen anyone have a substantial problem moving around in space in the MCU.

Spoiler:
Guardians 2? Fleeing the first world and having to get to the gate, or when Rocket and Yondu took the several hundred jumps at once and started physically warping? Thor 3, where they had to take a specific portal to get off world and back to Asgard?

They have problems getting around all the time. Thor's gotten around this by having Bifrost at his beck and call. Everyone else has had to slog it like peasants.
Also, in Captain Marvel
Spoiler:
When the Kree were first trying to get to Vers on Earth one of the Kree said something about how it would be 22 hours to the jump point. Or something along those lines. Presumably if they had just straight up FTL travel they'd just hit the go-go-fast button.


However, I definitely agree they've been a bit loose with space travel in the MCU. But, eh, comic book action movies. It doesn't bother me much.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Tue Mar 12, 2019 8:43 pm UTC
by Zohar
Spoiler:
"FTL" doesn't mean instantaneous travel anywhere in the universe. Maybe it's what they mean but it's never explicit. Sure, stuff still takes time, but with conventional sub-light speeds it would take humans at least 4.5 years to get to the nearest star system, let alone other galaxies. The difference between us and the travel speeds they have in the MCU is like having a race between a caterpillar and the ISS. Even if it takes you a few days to cross the universe, that is not a lot of time in terms of sending troops for support, etc. And communication is instantaneous in the MCU.

Point being, they already travel at FTL speeds, very easily. They needed a line saying "With her FTL drive we'll be able to reach anywhere in an instant" or something. It's not a big deal, the only thing we need to know is "She was working on a doohickey that's Very Good". Whereas essentially they were saying "We have thousands of fast cars! We need to get this fast car she was working on!" - why?

Unrelated, but I had a similar issue in the new Voltron. They were never consistent in their distances and travel speeds.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 7:50 am UTC
by maybeagnostic
So both the answers to my original questions and the FTL discussion make a lot of sense but are mostly not based on stuff explicitly established in the movies*. That's not really a big deal but I do like my plot critical thingamajigs to be slightly better established if the conflict of the movie is going to be based on them. This wasn't that big of a deal with the Mar Vell invention but
Spoiler:
I wish the twist with the Kree and Skrull would have had better established emotional stakes. Again, it didn't fall completely flat but I wish it was built up to more.


As for Brie Larson acting "wooden," I also have no idea where those criticisms are coming from. The closest thing I can think of is that Danvers spent too much time cracking jokes in some ostensibly serious scenes but that is both typical of MCU heroes and seemed in place for the character's cocky attitude. I was skeptical about how well she'd pull off the fighting scenes but those ended up being some of the more varied and exciting in the MCU.

* Let's take the Bifrost discussion. If it can take anyone anywhere, then the kind of instantaneous travel we are discussing was developed by Asgardians thousands of years ago. If it is limited to just nine realms (planets?), then it is a lot more like gates/jump points/whatever everyone else is using and there are apparently thousands of those around the universe. In either case, establishing what was so damn special about Mar Vell's invention shouldn't have taken more than a line or two, especially as it certainly wasn't a universal teleporter. /nitpick

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:18 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
Pfhorrest wrote:In the Endgame trailer, Tony appears to be on some kind of ship slowly making its way through space, too slowly for his survival odds according to the narration. Perhaps his ship just has a broken jump drive, so he's stranded in empty space somewhere? But if Titan really is just our own Titan, and that's the last place we saw him, then it seems like he's really quite nearby, on a cosmic scale, and it shouldn't be such a big deal; it should take about an hour for a message to reach Earth at lightspeed, and then Thor can just Bifrost over and grab him.


It's about 5 hours to Saturn, but the larger point stands - anything going on on Titan is something that people from Earth would be able to detect in near real-time. Also, if Titan was intended to be the moon of Saturn, they missed a massive opportunity for spectacle by not showing the Rings...

Pretty sure Titan was intended to be a planet of another solar system.

But, still, I'd assume an off-screen jump on the way to Titan.

maybeagnostic wrote:So both the answers to my original questions and the FTL discussion make a lot of sense but are mostly not based on stuff explicitly established in the movies*. That's not really a big deal but I do like my plot critical thingamajigs to be slightly better established if the conflict of the movie is going to be based on them.

[...]

* Let's take the Bifrost discussion. If it can take anyone anywhere, then the kind of instantaneous travel we are discussing was developed by Asgardians thousands of years ago. If it is limited to just nine realms (planets?), then it is a lot more like gates/jump points/whatever everyone else is using and there are apparently thousands of those around the universe. In either case, establishing what was so damn special about Mar Vell's invention shouldn't have taken more than a line or two, especially as it certainly wasn't a universal teleporter. /nitpick


Yeah, the world-building of interstellar travel in the MCU is a bit lacking - we know routine travel uses jumps, that jumps are limited in range/destination (since it took a ridiculous number to reach Ego), that you need to get to specific points in space in order to be able to jump, but we don't know anything about how jump points connect, what the network looks like, whether it's natural or artificial, how many places are "off the grid", or how it compares to a generic FTL drive (that travels through the space between places, rather than skipping the journey entirely).

As for the Bifrost, we have no idea how limited or otherwise its scope is - it definitely has access to the Nine Realms, doesn't have (intentional) access to Sakaar, and may or may not have access to any other specific location.

For that matter, just the interstellar space phones raise a whole bunch of questions, that only get worse if you start contemplating the physics. Ultimately, the answer to a lot of this is "movie writers don't care about physics" so digging into it gets into things not addressed onscreen very quickly...

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 9:43 pm UTC
by ObsessoMom
maybeagnostic wrote:As for Brie Larson acting "wooden," I also have no idea where those criticisms are coming from.


Probably the same general vicinity as the criticism about her not smiling enough.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:53 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
MCU Titan is the name of a planet in another solar system around another star, no relation to the moon named Titan.

As for FTL communication - as long as you are relatively close to a cluster of jump points (that are close to other jump points that are close to other jump points...) AND assuming communication use them as easily as a ship does AND assuming it uses some sort of more or less speed of light transmission method like a radio wave, then instant to another galaxy communication may be faster and easier than direct communication with Mars.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 10:36 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
SecondTalon wrote:As for FTL communication - as long as you are relatively close to a cluster of jump points (that are close to other jump points that are close to other jump points...) AND assuming communication use them as easily as a ship does AND assuming it uses some sort of more or less speed of light transmission method like a radio wave, then instant to another galaxy communication may be faster and easier than direct communication with Mars.


At one point, Vers and Yon-Rogg hold what appears to be a real-time conversation over a distance that gives a travel time of around 24 hours. That means that either Kree ships are not significantly faster than real-world human spacecraft, or their comms are significantly faster than light-speed (even after accounting for jumps reducing transmission distance).

And then there's the question of the Infinity War pager - if Captain Marvel is off exploring using the FTL drive rather than jump points, light-speed comms from jump points would take years to reach her...

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:49 am UTC
by maybeagnostic
rmsgrey wrote:And then there's the question of the Infinity War pager - if Captain Marvel is off exploring using the FTL drive rather than jump points, light-speed comms from jump points would take years to reach her...

She specifically upgraded the pager for this purpose though so it fits with the idea that the Tesseract/Space Stone is what allows for this instant communication and travel.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:53 am UTC
by SecondTalon
Eh she upgraded it the same way she upgraded the pay phone.

Without hard numbers for ship speeds, it’s hard to say.
Spoiler:
The 22 hour jump gate trip. Was that a trip from Earth to the Moon, Earth to Mars, Earth to Alpha Centari? All of those mean very different things.

Are the jump gates naturally occurring phenomenon or constructed? I know in the comics Earth is a sort of major connection point for many of the jump networks, but I think they also have direct FTL transportation as well, making it less important than MCU. If they occur naturally, then a few days to get to Marvel, a few days for her to get back over a network of several hundred (or thousand) jumps - which may be traceable in ways a direct FTL engine wouldn’t be - makes sense.


At any rate, it’s a reasonable question with no clear answer because we simply don’t know enough about how it works.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:49 pm UTC
by cphite
rmsgrey wrote:Yeah, the world-building of interstellar travel in the MCU is a bit lacking - we know routine travel uses jumps, that jumps are limited in range/destination (since it took a ridiculous number to reach Ego), that you need to get to specific points in space in order to be able to jump, but we don't know anything about how jump points connect, what the network looks like, whether it's natural or artificial, how many places are "off the grid", or how it compares to a generic FTL drive (that travels through the space between places, rather than skipping the journey entirely).


The jump points are fractures in the space-time continuum - kinda like wormholes - so basically you're able to "jump" between the two locations very quickly. Communications are done through the same network; you may be 200 light years from the other party, but you're effectively transmitting right next to them.

As for the Bifrost, we have no idea how limited or otherwise its scope is - it definitely has access to the Nine Realms, doesn't have (intentional) access to Sakaar, and may or may not have access to any other specific location.


Well, first off, the Bifrost is based on magic - it was literally built by a wizard - so we can ignore the laws of physics for the most part. The Bifrost can reach anywhere in the nine realms and "other worlds beyond" - I assume that means it can only go to specified worlds, but can't say for sure.

For that matter, just the interstellar space phones raise a whole bunch of questions, that only get worse if you start contemplating the physics. Ultimately, the answer to a lot of this is "movie writers don't care about physics" so digging into it gets into things not addressed onscreen very quickly...


These stories feature people that can fly, shoot beams of energy from their hands, carry hammers that can choose who can lift them, talking animate trees, and a raccoon that pilots a spaceship. The writers demonstrably do not care about physics :D

Even the relatively mundane stuff is pretty out there... for example, when Iron Man comes down from a mile in the air at terminal velocity and lands in his hero pose... in reality, if that actually happened, even if the suit survived the crash intact, it would be filled with Tony Stark soup.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 1:41 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
cphite wrote:
For that matter, just the interstellar space phones raise a whole bunch of questions, that only get worse if you start contemplating the physics. Ultimately, the answer to a lot of this is "movie writers don't care about physics" so digging into it gets into things not addressed onscreen very quickly...


These stories feature people that can fly, shoot beams of energy from their hands, carry hammers that can choose who can lift them, talking animate trees, and a raccoon that pilots a spaceship. The writers demonstrably do not care about physics :D

Even the relatively mundane stuff is pretty out there... for example, when Iron Man comes down from a mile in the air at terminal velocity and lands in his hero pose... in reality, if that actually happened, even if the suit survived the crash intact, it would be filled with Tony Stark soup.


What do the tree and the raccoon have to do with ignoring physics? A talking animate tree and a raccoon with the dexterity and mental acuity to pilot a spaceship clearly fall under the purview of biology...

The superhero landing is a pretty bad choice of landing, but it takes a lot to soupify someone - broken bones, and internal bleeding, sure, but not instant inevitable death.

But this is just more support for my general point - that trying to find physical explanations for things that happen in movies (generally, not just superhero movies) is, in general, going to fail, because the writers have other priorities than making everything physically accurate. That doesn't mean they're wrong, just that anyone analysing movies' settings should keep the MST3K Mantra and Bellisario's Maxim in mind - if you dig far enough, you'll always reach the point where the answer is "there is no answer"...

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:53 am UTC
by SecondTalon
Yeah, I've never cared for that. "This thing does this WACKY thing, so obviously nothing has to make any sense at all and can do what it wants." Mostly as it's very close to running afoul of Moff's Law

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:09 pm UTC
by cphite
rmsgrey wrote:What do the tree and the raccoon have to do with ignoring physics? A talking animate tree and a raccoon with the dexterity and mental acuity to pilot a spaceship clearly fall under the purview of biology...


They also don't care about biology.

Then again, Groot can expand and contract his limbs at will, and can grow new body mass from what appears to be nothing - which seem like they'd be impossible in terms of physics too.

The superhero landing is a pretty bad choice of landing, but it takes a lot to soupify someone - broken bones, and internal bleeding, sure, but not instant inevitable death.


"Soup" was an exaggeration; a joke. The point is, that kind of impact would cause severe injury and quite probably death.

But this is just more support for my general point - that trying to find physical explanations for things that happen in movies (generally, not just superhero movies) is, in general, going to fail, because the writers have other priorities than making everything physically accurate. That doesn't mean they're wrong, just that anyone analysing movies' settings should keep the MST3K Mantra and Bellisario's Maxim in mind - if you dig far enough, you'll always reach the point where the answer is "there is no answer"...


Agreed.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2019 2:19 pm UTC
by Zohar
cphite wrote:Then again, Groot can expand and contract his limbs at will, and can grow new body mass from what appears to be nothing - which seem like they'd be impossible in terms of physics too.

Maybe he's just very dense.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:16 am UTC
by maybeagnostic
In other news the rotten tomatoes audience score for the movie increased from under 30% on release day to 62% currently. On paper still one of the least liked Marvel movies which means that the whole downvote brigade still had some serious effect on the final score despite rotten tomatoes trying to change their policies to counteract this. Preventing audience reviews before release date was a good first move but I am not really sure there is a practical way to counteract this kind of brigading. You can use algorithms to detect consistently bad reviewers (like bots) but what can you do for regular viewers who just have an ideological beef with a movie? Should you even try to do something?

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 2:12 pm UTC
by Zohar
I mean if someone legitimately saw the movie and thought it was legitimately shitty, the whole goal of audience reviews is to reflect that. If millions of angry fanboys decide to spend money to buy tickets, I'm not sure Disney would complain. I suppose RT could start forcing people to upload a picture of their ticket, as well. That would be a fantastic dataset for them to sell afterwards...

I'm reminded of a book I read (Constellation Games) where first contact occurs and a random person on Earth decides to learn about aliens by studying their games. He comes to the conclusion that he shouldn't review their best games to learn about the culture - learning about the most controversial games would be better.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 3:00 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
Wait, how is "Most Controversial" determined? I'm thinking specifically of Tabletop RPGs here (and I know the book was focusing on computer games) but ... there's stuff that's controversial because it causes divisions in groups (D&D 4th Edition - controversial in that many people liked it and many people hated it), there's stuff that's controversial because it deals with subject matter people deem inappropriate for a game while others are okay with it or just ignore it (Kult, which had some controversy in that in the Modern Urban Fantasy rules rape was acknowledged and had rules for it), there's stuff that causes divisions simply for being overly complicated (Rolemaster as an example) or for not quite knowing if it was a joke or serious (Hackmaster). And then there's stuff that's called controversial even though it's not in that it's pretty much universally hated for being full of vile content and half-assed rules (FATAL is what I'm thinking about here and don't bother googling it, whatever you have in mind - FATAL is probably worse both in subject and execution).

Flipping that over to video games, there's stuff like LOL and DOTA causing schisms on hero balance and patch notes, and there's stuff like RapeDay which appears to have been created simply to play FreezePeach Chicken with Valve.

I guess I'm just asking what criteria one uses to determine that and what one hopes to learn from it.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:54 pm UTC
by Zohar
I believe he looked at games that have many very high scores and many very low scores. So if you have a 5-star rating with an average rating of three let's say, that wouldn't necessarily be interesting, but if the three is an average of only 5s and 1s, that means a lot of people felt passionately about the game, be it positive or negative. If everyone hates the game, it could just be bad. If everyone loves the game, it's probably good but doesn't necessarily tell you as much about what people do and don't like compared to something more controversial.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:05 pm UTC
by rmsgrey
SecondTalon wrote:Wait, how is "Most Controversial" determined? I'm thinking specifically of Tabletop RPGs here (and I know the book was focusing on computer games) but ... there's stuff that's controversial because it causes divisions in groups (D&D 4th Edition - controversial in that many people liked it and many people hated it), there's stuff that's controversial because it deals with subject matter people deem inappropriate for a game while others are okay with it or just ignore it (Kult, which had some controversy in that in the Modern Urban Fantasy rules rape was acknowledged and had rules for it), there's stuff that causes divisions simply for being overly complicated (Rolemaster as an example) or for not quite knowing if it was a joke or serious (Hackmaster). And then there's stuff that's called controversial even though it's not in that it's pretty much universally hated for being full of vile content and half-assed rules (FATAL is what I'm thinking about here and don't bother googling it, whatever you have in mind - FATAL is probably worse both in subject and execution).

Flipping that over to video games, there's stuff like LOL and DOTA causing schisms on hero balance and patch notes, and there's stuff like RapeDay which appears to have been created simply to play FreezePeach Chicken with Valve.

I guess I'm just asking what criteria one uses to determine that and what one hopes to learn from it.


And there's stuff that's controversial just because it's the only example people outside the hobby know of. Twenty years ago, Doom (the original, not the recent remake) was the controversial videogame, because it was the representative videogame, not because it was inherently controversial. Through the 80s in particular, D&D was controversial as the only RPG the muggles had heard of.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 7:13 pm UTC
by Zohar
But if you're looking at impact on culture, then that might be the exact type of games you want to look at.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 8:05 pm UTC
by SecondTalon
Of course, even understanding why Doom was controversial in 1994-onward, Hotline Miami didn't generate much controversy, but Hatred did involves already understanding the culture that produced all three.

Re: Captain Marvel

Posted: Wed Mar 20, 2019 10:07 pm UTC
by Zohar
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. To me it makes sense - sure, looking at Jurassic Park helps me learn about human culture. But looking at something that people both hate and love, like, I dunno, Fight Club or whatever, helps me understand it more.