All posts by

There is a new Agent 13 concept art piece, if that interests you.

I ask about a source mainly because there's a lot of fake news, for lack of a better term, that gets circulated by biased sources about Brie Larson.

I'm interested to see the original quote, because it's likely something along the lines of "I haven't been told of any plans for Marvel in the near future and it's been a heavy year promoting both films" (which I've seen her talk about) "so I'm looking forward to taking some time off from the big Marvel stuff", which is just a very standard thing to say.

I don't really get the Gwen Stacy analogy, but I don't think it should even be considered that sexist online trolls would have any influence on what Disney does with the character. It won't, and those people do not represent the majority of the fans, as the unskewed metrics such as the enormous box office, high Cinema Score, and general critical praise have proved.

Entirely personal/familial choice. If you're wondering on the basis of the original MCU content though, the first series, The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, doesn't start for almost another year, so no rush.

I'm just really eager to see him as Captain America, but it's increasingly looking like he won't fully assume the role until the end of the season, so aside from possible leaks we likely won't see that until we're watching the actual show.

Source?

Because she has seemed pretty fired up about the role, the sequel is confirmed, and has talked about how she doesn't pay attention to the online hate and isn't even fully aware of it. All I've seen her say on this wavelength is that she just doesn't know what's happening with Captain Marvel 2 yet: the plot, the schedule, and I can't find this interview.

Disney would never recast her if they didn't have to because:

-Insiders say Disney love her, to the point where they speculate she is Feige's actor of choice for Star Wars.

-She has been a massive success for Disney so far.

-It would be seen as a "victory for the trolls", which Disney would never be seen to cave to. Ironically, those trolls have protected her job even more, not that it needed it.

It's fine for me, but I think it's generally risky. They're going up from three "Phase" main releases in 2017-2020 to eight-to-eleven in 2021, depending on Ms. Marvel, She-Hulk, and Moon Knight.

That's a big leap to ask general audiences to take, as well as being a bold assumption for all general audience households to get Disney+. I know it's a meeting move: make it essential so people buy, but that's obviously a risk because if it doesn't pay off, you have essential content people aren't watching. While I'm sure Disney+ will be a success, I know there are friends of mine who will go to the cinema, but aren't the type to bother with a Disney+ subscription and watching those shows.

I also feel it undermines the special nature of the MCU "Phase" instalments. Currently, there's a lovely pattern - watch the TV shows for the day-to-day stuff, and look forward to three special moments a year with major MCU instalments. But now it will just be constant "major" instalments without the variety to make the idea of a "major" instalment excitement. If everything is major, then nothing is.

Plus I find the treating of these shows as the same level as the films weird. Something like WandaVision is a more excusable TV name than film name. Loki is a more excusable TV instalment than film instalment. But if you wouldn't make a film called WandaVision or a film about Loki, then don't make something equivalent to a film that is called WandaVision or about Loki. It makes the MCU feel like each instalment is less important, they're telling weird bonus stories in the supposedly important slots, the pens usually reserved for big next instalments in film trilogies.

I don't know...

Fair enough, I didn't have a problem with the cinematography I just didn't think it was anything of note in this case.

I didn't think about Brolin for some reason, of course that's entirely motion capture. Interesting.

I thought motion capture wasn't eligible, since after every Planet of the Apes film, for example, there was always a discussion of "Andy Serkis is as deserving as everyone else but not eligible unfortunately because it's motion capture". Unless whenever people said that they were just assuming.

Or unless you're allowed to put forward performances even if they're not actually eligible, as a "for your consideration" to the next degree "consider considering these performances".

Or they changed the rules, but I feel like that would have been big news.

I agree motion capture performances deserve more recognition. Unfortunately, technically the CG artists can tweak the performance, making it an uneven n playing field.

The obvious option some people suggest is a separate new category for best motion capture performance, awarding the actor and VFX team combined. Though there aren't many of those in a year, so it's less of a contest/achievement.

That said, there are more every year, so maybe soon it will be worth the creation of that category.

Interesting that they're putting forward Ruffalo when motion capture performances are not considered. So I guess it's the small parts where it's just him? In which case there's no opportunity to particularly show that level of acting.

I know with this stuff you just, if you have the money, throw as many people in as you can because why not? That's why I've defended their best picture campaign. If you have even a 1% chance of getting it and the money for the campaign, then you've got nothing to lose and it would be a really nice nomination/win if you do get it.

But some of these are a little silly, because they're less than a 1% chance:

-Chris Hemsworth, thought he was off his game for once in this one

-Mark Ruffalo for the reason above

-Paul Rudd, no opportunity to show that level of acting

-Gwyneth Paltrow, ditto

-Zoe Saldana, ditto

-Brie Larson, ditto

And the cinematography is nothing special.

But anyway, good on them for having a crack.