Romance Gone Bad in Movies/TV (Captain America SPOILERS)
KalElFan
just romance SPOILERS but plot SPOILERS and ending SPOILERS
for that movie. SPOILER space...
C
A
P
A
M
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
B
E
L
O
W
Credit to a Usenet poster named Colonel X for my use of the
"Romance Gone Bad" phrase in the thread title. He was talking
about the Lois & Clark TV series right after it crashed and burned
with the clone-of-Lois wedding arc.
Here we are 15 years later, and has the romance element ever
*really* been done right in superhero movies or TV, or in SF of
any kind for that matter, without then getting screwed up royally?
I don't think so.
Captain America may be the perfect example. For almost the
whole movie, it absolutely aces the romance. Although it's
different than the first Superman movie with Reeve and Kidder,
I'd put it up there with that and other Superman incarnations
like Lois & Clark when it was up as high as 22M+ viewers. The
ending of the second Reeve movie, with the infamous amnesia
superkiss, and the aforementioned clone wedding arc in Lois &
Clark sent both of those down in flames.
The geniuses behind Captain America decide to destroy it in a
couple of minutes after they spend most of the movie setting
it up! A new crash and burn Romance Gone Bad record!
The hero Captain America aka Steve Rogers and his love interest
Peggy Carter, played by Chris Evans and Hayley Atwell respectively,
are first and second in the credits on IMDb.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458339/fullcredits#cast
Here are a few stills:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1772521216/tt0458339
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1990625024/tt0458339
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3784949504/nm0262635
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2479472384/tt0458339
They promoted this romance element in the trailers and ads,
especially that scene the first still above is from. But Peggy is
also there earlier, from the start when he's a weakling, and
on throughout the movie. It works spectacularly well. Kudos
to the writing, and the two actors, and the gods of chemistry,
and the way a period setting can turbo charge it even more.
It's the best part of the movie.
The Shield is neat, the movie has Hugo Weaving and Tommy
Lee Jones and the production values are good. We see lots
of physical conflict and stuff blowing up real nice. The way
they establish Steve Rogers is a hero, culminating in him
throwing himself on a grenade early on also deserves a
mention. He learns it was a fake grenade, so it includes a
laugh as it gets him his final pass to the Captain America
makeover. But see, the moment when he thought it was
a real grenade... well, Peggy is right there in the middle of
that scene too.
One funny scene, shortly after Steve gets his Shield, has
a blonde in the military office initiating a kiss with Steve.
This is before Steve and Peggy have even kissed or agreed
to go out on a date. Peggy thinks the kiss with the blonde
is mutual, isn't happy, and fires off at least 4 or 5 rounds
of live ammunition at Steve. His shield stops the bullets,
as Peggy knew it would but it still made her point. Peggy's
a fun character beyond the love interest part. She's smart
and can kick ass and fire guns too.
Soon after, when Peggy is there watching war footage reels
with the Colonel (the Tommy Lee Jones character), there's
a close shot showing Steve is carrying a little picture of Peggy.
It's in a locket or part of his dog tag or some such. This serves
to effectively set things straight on the blonde.
There are at least a couple of mentions by Steve and Peggy
about finding the right dance partner and/or both these
characters waiting to find the right dance partner. As this
magnificently-executed romance juggernaut gets into the
home stretch, the kiss and setting of the dance date follows.
Near perfection, just about completed. But ...
Then the crash and burn, metaphorically and literally, in the
final minutes of the movie. Along with tens of millions of
dollars in higher box office they could have taken in the
rest of the way, not to mention improved sequel prospects.
Captain America goes down in flames, and into the ice for
70 years so he can appear in an Avengers movie. As the wiki
writer describes the ending:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_America:_The_First_Avenger#Plot
"In the present day, Rogers awakens in a room designed
to appear as if he were still in the early 1940s. But he hears
a radio broadcast of a baseball game he attended in 1941.
Deducing the truth and escaping to Times Square, Rogers
learns from S.H.I.E.L.D. leader Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson)
that he has been asleep for nearly 70 years, and they had
wanted to acclimate his reentry into modern times. Rogers's
only response is a sorrowed statement that he is late for a
dance he had promised to Carter nearly 70 years ago."
Sorrowed indeed, for the Hollywood dipshits who just can't
seem to ever get it right, even when it's handed to them in
95% of their movie.
For all those eternal optimists who may think this can be
salvaged in the sequel(s), well sure in theory it could. Just
like in theory Superman II's ending could have been salvaged.
But it would have required immediate PR at the time, as it
would now, about what the the intent was. Problem is they
didn't do it then and they aren't doing it now.
In fact it's worse this time. I did the research just to see if
the actress who plays Peggy had signed on for sequels (it's
usually two they sign on for). She had, and the actress is
quoted saying she'll be happy with whatever the storyline
is. But she thinks a bittersweet or poignant meeting with
Steve would be nice, the 90-something Peggy and the still
20-something Captain America. Gag me with a spoon I'm
glad I've given up Marvel.
But wait! Maybe she's just being told to say that'd be neat,
or giving it as one possibility to hide a better one. The one
she cites is a 90-second scene we already saw in The Event
TV series. Maybe she's wrong. Maybe Peggy could appear
in flashbacks, like Lost and so on, eh?
Just what we'd need, flashback reminders of the spectacular
crash and burn. Captain America remembering it all in his
mind's eye, before we see a tear well up in it perhaps. A
big double gag me with a spoon and I'm glad I've given up
on Marvel to that.
But wait! Maybe there are other possibilities. Let's see...
Sending Steve back to WWII era after the Avengers movie
won't work. He'd have knowledge of the future and it'd
also be backtracking from the audience's POV. Nor will it
work for Peggy's niece to be played by the same actress or
some such nonsense. Having read the wiki, I gather this
is how it was done in the comics reboots. This is not a
reboot, though, it's a continuous character getting moved
forward 70 years in time. A niece played by the same
actress is not Peggy.
The only way it could be fixed at this point would be to
bring Peggy forward as well. It'd be very easy to do in any
number of ways, but it would have been easy at the end
of this first movie too. They could have sent moviegoers
home happier, had an A or A+ Cinemascore instead of A-,
much better word of mouth and anticipation of the next
movie, and also set up a much better sequel creatively.
Both partners, in the magnificent romance setup that
they had in their grasp, could have been fish out of water
in 2012 or 2013 or whenever the next movie is with Steve.
Instead Steve will be an irreparably, romance-crippled
wreck of a character. Maybe it frees him up for a Singer
Superman Returns type job though. He can be Loner
Gay Jesus Soldier Steve and get a metaphorical crucifixion
at the hands of the villain, before they reboot.
Arthur Lipscomb
I never saw any advertisement that lead me to believe romance was in any
way central to the plot of the movie. The hero having a love interest
is hardly unique or special. Like all movie heroes, he was issued a
standard movie love interest. And if they do a sequel, he'll probably
be issued a new standard movie love interest.
snip
>
> Then the crash and burn, metaphorically and literally, in the
> final minutes of the movie. Along with tens of millions of
> dollars in higher box office they could have taken in the
> rest of the way, not to mention improved sequel prospects.
>
>
I think most people inclined to see this movie are going for the
spectacle and to watch Captain America fight Nazis/Red Skull and could
care less about the over all long-term prospects of the romance. Any
effect the romantic elements will have on the box office will be negligible.
Ken from Chicago
"KalElFan" <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote in message
news:991l05...@mid.individual.net...
BABYLON 5 got it right had not one, not two but THREE leading characters not
only in a romance but actually got married without the series grinding to a
halt or becoming derailed to focus only on the romance--in complete defiance
of the so-called Moonlighting Syndrome.
Gaius Baltar & Caprica Six and Athena & Helo of BATTLESTAR GALACTICA managed
to survive.
JOURNEYMAN featured a married couple that while strained by his time travel
managed to work thru it.
CHUCK has juggled about three couples thru its series.
Rose & Bernard and Desmond & Penny survived being LOST.
> Captain America may be the perfect example. For almost the
> whole movie, it absolutely aces the romance. Although it's
> different than the first Superman movie with Reeve and Kidder,
> I'd put it up there with that and other Superman incarnations
> like Lois & Clark when it was up as high as 22M+ viewers. The
> ending of the second Reeve movie, with the infamous amnesia
> superkiss, and the aforementioned clone wedding arc in Lois &
> Clark sent both of those down in flames.
>
> The geniuses behind Captain America decide to destroy it in a
> couple of minutes after they spend most of the movie setting
> it up! A new crash and burn Romance Gone Bad record!
<snip>
For once, that's not Hollywood's fault. Blame the comic. Captain America is
a World War 2 super-hero who hibernates until present-day while remaining
young. Peggy Carter did not. Their romance was doomed from the beginning.
That Hollywood chose NOT to have the typical summer blockbuster happy ending
by some lame cheat was good. It added to the poignancy of their romance. All
they had was that one kiss and the possibility of the saddest words of song
and pen: What might have been.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. One of the great things about EMPIRE STRIKES BACK was the unhappy
ending. It was in total defiance of the summer action blockbuster formula.
Ken from Chicago
news:j0g8b1$l3f$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 7/23/2011 9:22 PM, KalElFan wrote:
>> SPOILER warning in the thread title for Captain America. Not
>> just romance SPOILERS but plot SPOILERS and ending SPOILERS
>> for that movie. SPOILER space...
<snip>
>> They promoted this romance element in the trailers and ads,
>> especially that scene the first still above is from.
>
> I never saw any advertisement that lead me to believe romance was in any
> way central to the plot of the movie. The hero having a love interest is
> hardly unique or special. Like all movie heroes, he was issued a standard
> movie love interest. And if they do a sequel, he'll probably be issued a
> new standard movie love interest.
For the past decade or so, Hollywood has had multiple advertising pitches of
movies, some emphasizing the action, some the drama, some the comedy, some
the romance, of the same movie. It wouldn't surprise me if there were movie
trailers on Lifetime, Oxygen, WE, etc. emphasized the romance.
For those who followed the comics know what happens to Cap in present day
romancewise.
> snip
>>
>> Then the crash and burn, metaphorically and literally, in the
>> final minutes of the movie. Along with tens of millions of
>> dollars in higher box office they could have taken in the
>> rest of the way, not to mention improved sequel prospects.
>>
>>
>
> I think most people inclined to see this movie are going for the spectacle
> and to watch Captain America fight Nazis/Red Skull and could care less
> about the over all long-term prospects of the romance. Any effect the
> romantic elements will have on the box office will be negligible.
I thought the romance enhanced the movie, the bittersweet poignancy gave it
added sense of loss when he wakes up.
-- Ken from Chicago
Alane
In classic movies we remember for the romance - Gone With the Wind,
Casablanca,
Doctor Zhivago - we also remember for the fact the couple did not end up
together.
Alane
Arthur Lipscomb
> "Arthur Lipscomb" <art...@alum.calberkeley.org> wrote in message
> news:j0g8b1$l3f$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 7/23/2011 9:22 PM, KalElFan wrote:
>>> SPOILER warning in the thread title for Captain America. Not
>>> just romance SPOILERS but plot SPOILERS and ending SPOILERS
>>> for that movie. SPOILER space...
>
> <snip>
>
>>> They promoted this romance element in the trailers and ads,
>>> especially that scene the first still above is from.
>>
>> I never saw any advertisement that lead me to believe romance was in
>> any way central to the plot of the movie. The hero having a love
>> interest is hardly unique or special. Like all movie heroes, he was
>> issued a standard movie love interest. And if they do a sequel, he'll
>> probably be issued a new standard movie love interest.
>
> For the past decade or so, Hollywood has had multiple advertising
> pitches of movies, some emphasizing the action, some the drama, some the
> comedy, some the romance, of the same movie. It wouldn't surprise me if
> there were movie trailers on Lifetime, Oxygen, WE, etc. emphasized the
> romance.
>
True. I don't generally watch those networks so I wouldn't have seen
any of the romantic adds. ;-)
> For those who followed the comics know what happens to Cap in present
> day romancewise.
>
>> snip
>>>
>>> Then the crash and burn, metaphorically and literally, in the
>>> final minutes of the movie. Along with tens of millions of
>>> dollars in higher box office they could have taken in the
>>> rest of the way, not to mention improved sequel prospects.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I think most people inclined to see this movie are going for the
>> spectacle and to watch Captain America fight Nazis/Red Skull and could
>> care less about the over all long-term prospects of the romance. Any
>> effect the romantic elements will have on the box office will be
>> negligible.
>
> I thought the romance enhanced the movie, the bittersweet poignancy gave
> it added sense of loss when he wakes up.
>
> -- Ken from Chicago
I agree that it was a bittersweet ending. A change from the standard
hero gets the girl.
KalElFan
news:2sidnYGrcrEqbbbT...@giganews.com...
> BABYLON 5 got it right had not one, not two but THREE leading
> characters not only in a romance but actually got married without
> the series grinding to a halt or becoming derailed to focus only
> on the romance--in complete defiance of the so-called
> Moonlighting Syndrome.
Since I never watched the show I, I'll just say that it sounds good
and I'll readily concede in advance that there may be many of
those kinds of examples out there. They aren't what I'm talking
about but they're minor examples. Same here, kinda:
> Gaius Baltar & Caprica Six and Athena & Helo of BATTLESTAR
> GALACTICA managed to survive.
I did see that series, and so I can say definitively that what you're
talking about is not what I'm talking about. I put *really* in the
first post, *AND* then not having it screw up, to confine this to
the iconic romances that (i) really get it right or at least set up
right, but (ii) can't then follow through without the Romance
Gone Bad screwup.
For starters, that limits it to at least quasi-iconic properties.
There's a chicken and egg element to this where establishing
an iconic romance is often what makes it iconic as a property.
It's at least a very key part of it, as in Superman.
> JOURNEYMAN featured a married couple that while strained
> by his time travel managed to work thru it.
The ending especially was what sealed that as a potentially great,
iconic romance setup. The speculation that their kid might be one
of the Future folk pulling the strings could also have fed into that.
I'll readily concede Journeyman as a terrific *prospect* for what I'm
talking about. One day perhaps they make or remake it, but it
doesn't get close to that *really* word, or iconic status, as long
as it's so obscure.
> CHUCK has juggled about three couples thru its series.
The only one that mattered there were the two leads, and they
basically never did anything with it. So nowhere near *really*
good let alone having any iconic potential. I stopped watching
early on, but enough to know it wasn't really going anywhere
and obviously it's become even more marginal ratingswise.
> Rose & Bernard and Desmond & Penny survived being LOST.
Rose & Bernard was quaint, the other two I'd dropped Lost by
then. Interesting you should mention it though, because in
season 1 the supporting relationship that could have emerged
with breakout potential was Sayid and the woman in the
backstory from Iraq. Huge potential there, though an upper
limit to it as supporting characters. They completely missed
it and nothing ever came of it, for as long as I was watching
anyway.
Another great illustration, among the minor league or second
tier examples of things with great potential, was Hiro in Heroes
and his relationship with Charlie the waitress. They had no idea
what they were sitting on, blew it, and their cluelessness carried
through to other stuff as well.
So all some instructive and interesting examples, but none get
to the kind or level I was talking about. Captain America is not
something I would ever have expected to be that either, but
the romance is that great... until the Romance Gone Bad crash
and burn. If it's a romance cliffhanger that'll be fixed, then it's
not just salvageable it's potentially huge.
> For once, that's not Hollywood's fault.
Of course it is, "Hollywood" meaning the Hollywood decision-
makers. So Avi Arad in this case, as I understand the power
structure, would be ultimately responsible for where they go
with this. Blaming comics won't cut it, because any idiot can
check and see that comics are an extremely small niche market.
It's literally less than a small fraction of 1%. Here we're talking
even more obscure stuff, i.e.:
> Blame the comic. Captain America is a World War 2 super-hero
> who hibernates until present-day while remaining young. Peggy
> Carter did not. Their romance was doomed from the beginning.
That just shows how marginal your view is, even as a spinmeister
for the pseudo-comics justification of what they did. Captain
America was a World War II superhero whose love interest was
Peggy Carter. Period. The ice hibernation and whatever else is
just some lame-ass device used to modernize or update him at
any given time. You keep digging in deeper rationalizing it here:
> That Hollywood chose NOT to have the typical summer
> blockbuster happy ending by some lame cheat was good.
Your mind lives in a world where it's a lame cheat to follow
through with a magnificently-executed romance, but not to
put a hero on ice for 70 years so he can conform with the
sequel continuity the want. It's purely subjective and 99%
certain it comes from some other place, or some broader
place, than your love of three-hanky tearjerkers. There are
lots of places it comes from, but that's inherent in my point.
For whatever reasons -- and there are reasons -- Hollywood
rationalizes and misses and has no clue when it comes to
this. You are NOT in an exclusive club in that sense.
If Avi Arad is in charge creatively, I could be wrong in this case
because he's not conventional studio mentality. Conceivably
he may already have planned the Captain America ending as
a romance cliffhanger, or maybe he'll make it that after having
seen all the buzz the romance element and Evans and Atwell
are getting.
> It added to the poignancy of their romance. All they had
> was that one kiss and the possibility of the saddest words
> of song and pen: What might have been.
*sniff* Wait...
I'm sorry, I just had to break open another box of Kleenex.
*SNIFF*
It's not what people want to see in this genre, neither male nor
female. There are anecdotal exceptions but they only serve to
make the point.
> P.S. One of the great things about EMPIRE STRIKES BACK was
> the unhappy ending. It was in total defiance of the summer
> action blockbuster formula.
You're omitting the part where it was 100% certain and we all
knew it, that it was *NOT* the ending of the story. It was just a
cliffhanger! Cliffhangers can never be unhappy endings. View
the last couple of minutes of Captain America as not just an
Avengers setup but a romance cliffhanger, and we can't say
definitively that it's an unhappy ending. It could just be a
poignant pause. :-)
Remember, a key to Captain America is he never gives up. We
get told that and see that again and again with his character.
Does he just give up on Peggy and keeping the date with her?
If he does then he was just a wimp all along, right? "Captain
America: The Greatest Wimp" is the next sequel if he just gives
up on keeping the date.
So of course he'll at least try to look up 90-something Peggy,
and boy will he be surprised if Avi's issued the right creative
directives. :-) No Peggy. Anywhere. No marriage, no death,
nuttin' at all from the Day Captain America left the 40s. Cue
the goosebumps and Twilight Zone music.
David Johnston
Titanic
Brokeback Mountain
Gone With The Wind
Ghost
Shakespeare In Love
West Side Story
A Walk To Remember
Casablanca
Love Story
Moulin Rouge
What do all these successful movies have in common?
David Johnston
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>> It added to the poignancy of their romance. All they had
>> was that one kiss and the possibility of the saddest words
>> of song and pen: What might have been.
>
>*sniff* Wait...
>
>I'm sorry, I just had to break open another box of Kleenex.
>
>*SNIFF*
>
>It's not what people want to see in this genre, neither male nor
>female.
What? Plausible script writing? Because you know it's implausible
that Steve Rogers wouldn't leave anyone behind when he gets
flash-frozen.
KalElFan
> I never saw any advertisement that [led] me to believe
> romance was in any way central to the plot of the movie.
"Central" makes it subjective, especially since some romance
element is almost standard. But for starters the ubiquitous
scene is the one in virtually all the trailers and ads going back
months and months, since they started promoting the movie.
The first still link I posted was from that scene:
> http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1772521216/tt0458339
That alone wasn't anywhere near enough to suggest a central
let alone iconic-class romance, but if you pair it with the era it
starts to get there. Period pieces are very condusive to good
romance storytelling. It planted the seeds if you will, that at
least that part of the movie might work well.
Then the movie went through a prolonged downward spiral
in expectations, which only stopped earlier this week or so.
The decline in superhero movie numbers generally, doubt
whether the period piece and Captain America would work
as a superhero movie, Harry Potter coming out the week
before and then to record numbers were all reasons.
Low tracking numbers also suggested that even a $50M
opening weekend might be in doubt for Captain America.
On HSX.com it had once traded as high as $226.25 earlier
this year, but earlier this week had dropped as low as $148.30.
That's equivalent to an opening weekend estimate of $83.M
versus $54.2M, an almost $30M difference.
It rebounded dramatically only after the reviews started
coming in, many of which cited the romance element favorably.
One early one this week even referred to it in an iconic or best
ever sense, at least for the genre. Expectations that the movie
could break out better started the price back up again.
It got the movie a $65M+ opening in the estimates, but if you
follow these box office trends closely enough you can see how
a levelling off started happening over the weekend. If you look
at the boards on HSX or anywhere else, or on the web sites, the
reviews have become actual moviegoers talking about details.
So for example:
"The romance was great!" (Comic Book Movie)
But then:
"This makes it hard to buy into any romance between Steve
and Peggy, since you know they will ultimately be separated.
That's an important piece of the movie that winds up being
undermined (Widescreen Warrior.com )"
I didn't read why Widescreen Warrior thought that they'd be
separated, since I guarantee you 95% of moviegoers have no
clue. But once the movie is seen, they know they are separated
at least in the cliffhanger. So the great romance hook in the
plugs for the movie and so on are revealed to be bait and
switch by the end, unless you're into three-hanky tearjerkers.
Most are not in this genre, and unless the PR deals with this
Captain America may not only see the standard steep decline
this week it may even be worse than average. It depends how
informed people are or whether they believe the cliffhanger is
the final word, and I think they'll tend to believe it is. They
won't know, for example, that the actress is signed for sequels.
If the 90-something Peggy or flashbacks is the plan, knowing
that would only make it worse.
> Like all movie heroes, he was issued a standard movie love
> interest.
Too late! Even more than Evans, the buzz is about Atwell and her
character and the romance. Paradoxically, the movie probably
made $10M+ more because of the immediately pre-release buzz
surrounding that, but loses more than that now because of the
ending. It'll lose more than that again in terms of the sequel(s),
massively more compared to the better alternative.
> And if they do a sequel, he'll probably be issued a new standard
> movie love interest.
Like Superman III with Lana Lang!
> I think most people inclined to see this movie are going for the
> spectacle and to watch Captain America fight Nazis/Red Skull
"Most people," sure I can agree with that easily especially when
expectations had bottomed out early last week. But I just noticed
another site saying Haley Atwell and Red Skull were the only two
things worth seeing in the movie. One guy's opinion, but then
there's this:
http://buzzlog.yahoo.com/buzzlog/94511/meet-hayley-atwell-captain-america-star-stirs-the-web
"There's a new face in the movie "Captain America: The First
Avenger" who is capturing the interest of fans across the Web.
She's Hayley Atwell, and she plays Chris Evans's love interest
in the new superhero flick.
Already, buzz on the brunette is growing on Yahoo!. The actress,
who is getting rave reviews for the film, is also being sought in
searches. Lookups on "Hayley Atwell Captain America" have
already seen gains, along with "Hayley Atwell" and "Hayley Atwell
photo."
So the issue is how Marvel and Avi now handle it. It doesn't matter
that you don't get it or can't see it, Arthur. That's anecdotal and
purely self-selected as a sample. Posts attract disagreement and
contrarian views. But out there the buzz on this movie is all about
the romance element and how well it worked, at least until the
crash and burn.
If you're Avi Arad or connected to any of the Marvel movies, the
Atwell buzz can be an opportunity or downright frightening. It
suggests they've written off your Romance Gone Bad, stick to
the fanboy action figures market. They're following what happens
to the real star of the movie to see what she's moving on to. This
is Superman II all over again, only much worse because there was
never really that aspect surrounding Margot Kidder. Nor can it
be compared to Transformers 1 and Megan Fox. Peggy Carter is
far from just window dressing and an adolescent boy's fantasy.
The way they set up the romance involved far more good creative
effort and other factors like the period setting.
They need to capitalize on this rather than screw it up, but I think
it's 80%-20% they screw it up. I hope I'm wrong.
KalElFan
> In classic movies we remember for the romance - Gone With the
> Wind, Casablanca, Doctor Zhivago - we also remember for the fact
> the couple did not end up together.
All from a much different time, and when sequels to big epics with
big stars were rare or nonexistent as even a concept. Even without
the epic part, the "big stars" alone could make the movie. It was
never really that the movie was remembered for the love interests
not getting together. It was because the movie and the stars made
it all larger than life in a way nothing else could.
The bastardized equivalent, in today's world, is when a movie flops
because we know too much about the stars or are sick of the 24/7
celebrity stories about them. One of the reasons Atwell worked
so well here is nobody knew her. Same with Evans to some extent,
despite his having been in both Fantastic Four movies. If this had
been Ben Affleck and J-Lo at the height of their celebrity, the thing
may have been the superhero equivalent of Gigli.
David Johnston
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>"Alane" wrote in message news:992lf5...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> In classic movies we remember for the romance - Gone With the
>> Wind, Casablanca, Doctor Zhivago - we also remember for the fact
>> the couple did not end up together.
>
>All from a much different time, and when sequels to big epics with
>big stars were rare or nonexistent as even a concept. Even without
>the epic part, the "big stars" alone could make the movie. It was
>never really that the movie was remembered for the love interests
>not getting together.
Frankly Scarlett...I don't give a damn.
David Johnston
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>"Alane" wrote in message news:992lf5...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> In classic movies we remember for the romance - Gone With the
>> Wind, Casablanca, Doctor Zhivago - we also remember for the fact
>> the couple did not end up together.
>
>All from a much different time, and when sequels to big epics with
>big stars were rare or nonexistent as even a concept. Even without
>the epic part, the "big stars" alone could make the movie. It was
>never really that the movie was remembered for the love interests
>not getting together. It was because the movie and the stars made
>it all larger than life in a way nothing else could.
Who the hell was the female love interest in Titanic?
KalElFan
news:058p2792tkaq0ogn1...@4ax.com...
> Titanic
> Brokeback Mountain
> Gone With The Wind
> Ghost
> Shakespeare In Love
> West Side Story
> A Walk To Remember
> Casablanca
> Love Story
> Moulin Rouge
>
> What do all these successful movies have in common?
None are superhero movies or even conventional SF (two
exceptions noted next paragraph). None are franchises or
even had major sequels.
One (Ghost) is a movie with an openly afterlife component
and ending. Another (Titanic) is a movie with an acknowledged
afterlife interpretation of the ending. Cameron has said it's a
viewers' choice whether Rose is asleep or dead at the end.
An afterlife context can not only alter but completely turn
on its ear what would otherwise be a pure tearjerker context.
It's one big reason Ghost succeeded and Titanic succeeded
huge.
My response to Alane just now covers Gone With the Wind,
Casablanca and movies like those. They're just very different
animals from a very different time, there was much more
going on than any Romance Gone Bad appeal, and citing
them makes my point rather than challenges it.
Moulin Rouge wasn't really about the story at all BTW, it
was all about the music and ambience and spectacle, and
doing a riff on Bollywood. You might as well have used an
opera of some sort to miss making your case on that one.
KalElFan
>... you know it's implausible that Steve Rogers wouldn't
> leave anyone behind when he gets flash-frozen.
*ALL* stuff like that is just a lame-ass device as I called it.
The only thing more ludicrous is selectively deeming
something else a cheat and that not.
We know Atwell is signed for sequels. Assuming they
don't backtrack on that and not use her at all, I see
only six possible categories of how she appears in the
sequel. Here are five that I think are all as lame ass
as it gets:
1. As a 90-something Peggy
2. In flashbacks
3. In a dream, presumably Steve's but anyone's
4. As Not Peggy, i.e., a different character, clone, alien
shapeshifter or whatnot
5. As Forever Original 40s Peggy, because Captain America
goes back to the 40s from whence he came.
Or --- ding ding ding, we have a winner --
6. Peggy gets brought forward, choosing from a very wide
range of creative options to do so.
You or anyone feel free to identify another category, but I'm
99% sure it'll fit into one of the above.
My identifying the only six options is not too specific and
posts no copyright or idea theft issues for them. They have
no choice. They'd have to be doing one of the above with
Hayley Atwell. Will it be the five lame ass options, or the
one you've never seen before in SF of any kind, has huge
potential to be fun, marketable, generate bigger box office,
and that much of the audience would love to see?
Stay tuned for Avi Arad & Co.'s decision, but if #6 is his
choice -- the right choice -- then we can factually say that
Peggy Carter will not be 90-something when Steve looks
her up, nor will she ever have been married, nor will she
ever have died. There's no record of her beyond the day
that Captain America disappeared from the 40s. That's
not an "idea" they risk stealing from me or anyone, it's
simply a fact that flows directly from choice #6, the only
Not Lame Ass Option IMNSHO.
I say consider it an Avengers spoiler. :-) At some point in
that movie, an ending that harks back to this one perhaps,
Peggy Carter is brought forward in time for the Captain
America 2 sequel. See, I'm stealing their ending in this
here example, so it's not like they'd be stealing mine. :-)
Ronald O. Christian
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>We know Atwell is signed for sequels. Assuming they
>don't backtrack on that and not use her at all, I see
>only six possible categories of how she appears in the
>sequel. Here are five that I think are all as lame ass
>as it gets:
>
>1. As a 90-something Peggy
>2. In flashbacks
>3. In a dream, presumably Steve's but anyone's
>4. As Not Peggy, i.e., a different character, clone, alien
> shapeshifter or whatnot
>5. As Forever Original 40s Peggy, because Captain America
> goes back to the 40s from whence he came.
>
>Or --- ding ding ding, we have a winner --
>
>6. Peggy gets brought forward, choosing from a very wide
> range of creative options to do so.
>
>You or anyone feel free to identify another category, but I'm
>99% sure it'll fit into one of the above.
Granddaughter. Something like it was used in Wonder Woman the old
live action series, although I liked the ending better in the JLA
animated story arc, which ended with a forever young Diana in modern
times visiting Steve Trevor (her companion from WW2) in a rest home.
Which kinda proves your point, I guess. But I thought it was a nice
bittersweet touch that had more impact than a "happy" ending would
have.
>My identifying the only six options is not too specific and
>posts no copyright or idea theft issues for them. They have
>no choice. They'd have to be doing one of the above with
>Hayley Atwell. Will it be the five lame ass options, or the
>one you've never seen before in SF of any kind,
Not "any kind". It's not uncommon in literature. "We will go to
sublevel five, where if we're very lucky, we will find your girlfriend
who has been frozen for all this time". Standard stuff for time
dilation stories, to use one example.
Ron
-
2003 FLHTCUI "Noisy Glide"
http://www.christianfamilywebsite.com
http://www.ronaldchristian.com
David Johnston
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
Of course I've seen it before. Of course that was in settings where
cryogenics was commercially available so they could in fact follow or
they got caught in the same event moving the hero forward. Otherwise
it wouldn't make sense. But this is not of course something nobody
has ever thought of before. But they had a initial setup making it
plausible for just such a reason. Besides, I already know what they
are going to do.
David Johnston
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>On rec.arts.tv, "David Johnston" wrote in message
>news:058p2792tkaq0ogn1...@4ax.com...
>
>> Titanic
>> Brokeback Mountain
>> Gone With The Wind
>> Ghost
>> Shakespeare In Love
>> West Side Story
>> A Walk To Remember
>> Casablanca
>> Love Story
>> Moulin Rouge
>>
>> What do all these successful movies have in common?
>
>None are superhero movies or even conventional SF (two
>exceptions noted next paragraph). None are franchises or
>even had major sequels.
Nope. What they all have in common is that they drew in the female
audience despite having an ending where the couple are forever parted.
Tell me, what's Joss Whedon noted for in regard to romance?
KalElFan
news:p0ip27h5dnaqa3tmm...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 21:23:22 -0400, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> We know Atwell is signed for sequels. Assuming they
>> don't backtrack on that and not use her at all, I see
>> only six possible categories of how she appears in the
>> sequel. Here are five that I think are all as lame ass
>> as it gets:
>>
>> 1. As a 90-something Peggy
>> 2. In flashbacks
>> 3. In a dream, presumably Steve's but anyone's
>> 4. As Not Peggy, i.e., a different character, clone, alien
>> shapeshifter or whatnot
>> 5. As Forever Original 40s Peggy, because Captain America
>> goes back to the 40s from whence he came.
>>
>> Or --- ding ding ding, we have a winner --
>>
>> 6. Peggy gets brought forward, choosing from a very wide
>> range of creative options to do so.
>>
>> You or anyone feel free to identify another category, but I'm
>> 99% sure it'll fit into one of the above.
>
> Granddaughter.
It's in #4 "different character". I mentioned in another post,
unless it got cut in a draft, that I'd read the wiki on Captain
America and had seen that Peggy's niece of some such had
become his girlfreind in a later incarnation. Unworkable in
this case, almost "Ewww" in fact. They need to bring Peggy
forward for it to work.
>> My identifying the only six options is not too specific and
>> posts no copyright or idea theft issues for them. They have
>> no choice. They'd have to be doing one of the above with
>> Hayley Atwell. Will it be the five lame ass options, or the
>> one you've never seen before in SF of any kind,
>
> Not "any kind". It's not uncommon in literature. "We will
> go to sublevel five, where if we're very lucky, we will find
> your girlfriend who has been frozen for all this time".
Sure, and that would obviously be awful execution of the
concept in a movie like this. I hesitate to get too specific,
but let's again point out the obvious. Steve Rogers, even
back in the 40s, lived in a world with a mysterious agency
that included Peggy herself. It's an agency that could create
a superhero, Steve being it. It's a world where Hitler was
the secondary target and the far bigger threat was one of
his functionaries. He too was a "super" but a Red Skull
villain, and he had a stealth-looking bomber and atomic-
class weapons. When he's offed, the supernatural device
he'd been using seems to transport him off to another
galaxy for storage, and Captain America witnesses that.
Now, he wakes up and it's 70 years *farther* into the future.
A place where gods like Thor exist.
C'mon, are Hollywood writers really so helpless that they
can't get from A to B here, and do it reasonably well? They
have the Captain America never gives up canon, so among
whatever other threats he'll be fighting in tandem with the
other heroes you betcha he'd be thinking Peggy and their
date. And if the creative marching orders are #6, when he
checks up on Peggy she went missing. The writers have no
choice but that, given #6.
Does Thor's hammer do time travel by the way?
KalElFan
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 20:21:08 -0400, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> ... "big stars" alone could make the movie. It was
>> never really that the movie was remembered for the
>> love interests not getting together. It was because the
>> movie and the stars made it all larger than life in a way
>> nothing else could.
>
> Who the hell was the female love interest in Titanic?
You're reduced to pointless out of context quips, both
here and with your last line in GWTW reference in the
other post. If it suits my purpose I'm always open to
kicking your bad argument when it's down, but you
haven't even risen to a bad argument with these quips.
I will offer a possible SNL skit excerpt based on your
lunacy though. A Hollywood brainstorming session:
Executroid #1: Gone With The Wind with Clark Gable!
Executroid #2: Titanic With Leo DiCaprio!
A pregnant pause as a challenged junior trainee struggles
to make a connection to the flow.
Apprentice #14: Captain America with Chris Evans!
KalElFan
> ... they drew in the female audience despite having an
> ending where the couple are forever parted.
David, you can almost make mocking you not fun. Yes,
I knew that's what you were going for and refuted your
entire list as having any relevance.
This, OTOH, I'll concede is relevant:
> Tell me, what's Joss Whedon noted for in regard to
> romance?
I've seen his defenders try to argue that point differently,
but generally I concede the point that he's more than just
romance challenged. He has that dark place where he lives
(his quote, paraphrasing only slightly), and he likes it and
it's a series killer in terms of ratings.
Movies are different, the Avengers is less his plaything
than ever, and he himself may want to show he can branch
out and use this as a spectacular opportunity to do that.
If not, this is actually a big enough issue that if Avi Arad
and the other executroids make that 20% chance of a
right call, they should just replace him if he won't play
ball.
Your other post alluding to you "knowing" what will
happen is potentially more interesting so that post will
come through next.
KalElFan
> Of course I've seen it before... But they had a initial setup
> making it plausible...
So you haven't seen it before. You imagine or deem
something to be the case when it's not. Then you add
some further imagined implausibility about what you've
just imagined or deemed. You're a multi-layered work
of imagined bad arguments and out of context quips.
Here's what caught my eye though:
> Besides, I already know what they are going to do.
False. At best, you think you know what they're going
to do. But feel free to tell us what that is, and why
you think you know.
KalElFan
> I agree that it was a bittersweet ending. A change from the standard
> hero gets the girl.
The discussions since have already addressed that even more, but I
wanted to add some things I've just run across.
Amanda Righetti, who's in The Mentalist, has been cast in the
Avengers and rumor has it that she's playing Sharon Carter, niece
of Peggy Carter. The wiki mentions how a lot of this varies depending
on the incarnation, but at one point says:
"Sharon brought Rogers back to the place she was born, and he
was also reunited with the much older Peggy. Peggy would also
join S.H.I.E.L.D.,"
That passage appears in the fictional biography of the character,
and is a part of what seems to be a long comic book arc getting
from here to there.
I'll still be pessimistic and say it's 80-20 they screw it up, but honestly
I find it difficult to believe they would screw it up so badly to think
that Steve Rogers is taking up with Peggy's niece. To me, that's just
bizarre lunacy to think it would work.
My option #6 scenario, on the other hand, the one I think is the
only Not Lame Ass Option for what Hayley Atwell's role will be in
the sequels, fits perfectly with a niece existing. The thing is, under
option #6, she never knew Peggy. She would know, however, that
Peggy disappeared in the 1940s, the same day Captain America
did. If Captain America or his friends wanted to help him keep
his date, that's the day they'd have to offer Peggy a lift to 2012
to get there, and Thor's hammer has done time travel according
to the Wiki.
So I'm actually thinking it's much higher than a 20% chance that
Peggy gets brought forward, perhaps in an Avengers teaser ending
that leads into Captain America 2. But in any event at some point
in the movie, and by Thor after he learns history records that Peggy
Carter vanished. He takes that as his cue the hammer moment,
and it's creative mission accomplished. If not, it'll be another
iconically stupid missed opportunity.
David Johnston
If you want to say that the Captain America romance subplot was second
rate fine. But that's not a compelling argument that it needs to be
continued, or that they would have made a lot more money out of giving
it a cliche happy ending.
David Johnston
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>"David Johnston" wrote in message
>news:pbip275k2bivalntg...@4ax.com...
>
>> Of course I've seen it before... But they had a initial setup
>> making it plausible...
>
>So you haven't seen it before.
Yes, I can see why saying that I've seen it before means I haven't.
But I have. It was for example. how the Door Into Summer ends.
>Here's what caught my eye though:
>
>> Besides, I already know what they are going to do.
>
>False. At best, you think you know what they're going
>to do.
I know what they've already done and so do you. They have no reason
to do something something else for the movies.
David Johnston
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>"David Johnston" wrote in message
>news:35jp27dk9q39lgbtn...@4ax.com...
>
>> ... they drew in the female audience despite having an
>> ending where the couple are forever parted.
>
>David, you can almost make mocking you not fun. Yes,
>I knew that's what you were going for and refuted your
>entire list as having any relevance.
You crawled into bed pulled your covers over your head and denied
that sad endings are ever popular.
>
>This, OTOH, I'll concede is relevant:
>
>> Tell me, what's Joss Whedon noted for in regard to
>> romance?
>
>I've seen his defenders try to argue that point differently,
>but generally I concede the point that he's more than just
>romance challenged. He has that dark place where he lives
>(his quote, paraphrasing only slightly), and he likes it and
>it's a series killer in terms of ratings.
>
>Movies are different, the Avengers is less his plaything
>than ever, and he himself may want to show he can branch
>out and use this as a spectacular opportunity to do that.
Yeah, right. He'll just stick in a happy romantic ending when none is
called for or makes sense.
KalElFan
> Yes, I can see why saying that I've seen it before means I haven't.
> But I have. It was for example. how the Door Into Summer ends.
Looked at the Wiki and it's nothing remotely like what I've
described. Again, you simply imagine or deem something to
be what you have no clue about.
> I know what they've already done and so do you. They have
> no reason to do something something else for the movies.
So you concede you only think you know what they're going to
do, based on conflicting and obscure comic canon that makes
no sense even if applied.
And to be clear because you seem embarassed to be specific,
what we can look forward to is Sharon Carter, Peggy's niece
played by the gal from The Mentalist, becoming the new love
interest for Steve. Meanwhile 90-something Peggy will become
Granny S.H.I.E.L.D.S or some such, a fellow member of that
organization along with Sharon. Not before we get the poignant
scene the actress mentioned, but then we'll get the uproarious
laughter as Granny Peggy heads out on her broom to fight
villains trying to corner the world market on Polident and
Depends? Spoil me, soil me, whatever, is that the plan? I
mean since you think you know and all.
KalElFan
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:02:46 -0400, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> .... A Hollywood brainstorming session:
>>
>> Executroid #1: Gone With The Wind with Clark Gable!
>> Executroid #2: Titanic With Leo DiCaprio!
>>
>> A pregnant pause as a challenged junior trainee struggles
>> to make a connection to the flow.
>>
>> Apprentice #14: Captain America with Chris Evans!
>
> If you want to say that the Captain America romance subplot was
> second rate fine. But that's not a compelling argument that it
> needs to be continued, or that they would have made a lot more
> money out of giving it a cliche happy ending.
The partial skit above is to make the factually obvious point
that these are *DIFFERENT* things. I'm saying that the Captain
America romance subplot was iconically great, until they blew
it with a Romance Gone Bad crash and burn in the final few
minutes. But I also acknowledged the possibility that they
could view it as a romance cliffhanger and fix it in the May
2012 Avengers movie.
The compelling argument went over your head a long time
ago, around the time you fixated on comparatives that don't
work. In the original post I focused on SF, knowing that some
might mention tear jerkers generally. I expected Love Story,
which is obviously a different animal. The male demo would
flee in droves if an SF movie were that. Titanic and Ghost
were also different animals, even as tear jerkers. Because of
the afterlife context or framing and for other reasons, they
were successful in appealing to the male market as well.
The other movies in Alane's post, again not comparable to
what we have here.
The cliche ending here is not the one that advances the
iconic romance. An iconic romance has NEVER been done
right in this genre! Never. It's mired in all kinds of b.s.
thinking including that the b.s. thinking is somehow
creatively new, while the thing they never got right is
cliche.
Arthur and his interchangeable girlfriends approach, that's
cliche as it is in James Bond. The hero as loner, even Spider-
Man's great setup in the first movie succumbed to that in
its ending. The window dressing girlfriend is ubiquitous in
the SF genre, from Batman to Transformers. There are
supporting and minor character anecdotal examples as
Ken posted, but those too are cliche -- let's do a romance
sop there so we can keep doing the cliches with the main
characters. Perpetual UST, see X-Files and other examples.
Romance Gone Bad, again ubiquitous. Cliches all, so time
to get it right for once.
KalElFan
> You crawled into bed pulled your covers over your head
> and denied that sad endings are ever popular.
Nope, you just imagined and deemed that I did that, as
part of yout rampant imagining and deeming.
> Yeah, right. He'll just stick in a happy romantic ending
> when none is called for or makes sense.
Imagining and deeming that it's stuck in and uncalled for
and doesn't makle sense is pretty funny, considering you
think Granny S.H.I.E.L.D.S is what we'll get, while Captain
America gets some younger Carter S.H.I.E.L.D. one way or
another.
What I've posted follows factually from the option #6
that I gave. You've chosen a version of option #4, as
described in the last paragraph. I'm delighted with the
contrast.
jack
We know right from the start that the Captain is found frozen, just as
in his 60s Marvel reincarnation. Now the question is would having a
bed scene between him and Peggy enhance or take away from the plot.
Or would it be feasible to begin with? Rogers is obviously a virgin
and has little romantic experience although he has high romantic
ideals. This did not change after his transformation. That kiss
scene played an important role other than to piss off Peggy. Here
Captain the Hunk has been traveling around with a chorus line and you
would think something would have happened there. None of those women
made a pass at the handsome hero? Was Captain chained to his bedpost
at night? So that kiss established that he had maintained his purity
throughout all those bond tours.
Plus, this movie made an excellent attempt to capture the feeling of
1940s movies, but alas, is being shown in 2011; pre-marital sex
between heros wasn't allowed then, but just showing the two of them in
some sort of passionate embrace without culmination would not work in
a 2011 movie, so zero on the sex all around.
Also, there is his age. From the story line I would say that Rogers
is in his early 20s at most. However, Evans easily looks to be the 30
or so that he is, which might draw us the audience to want a more
sophisticated relationship between Rogers and Peggy.
[Non sequiter: it's like that actor who plays the oldest of Noah
Wyle's sons in Falling Skies. He's supposed to be 17, but looks
obviously the 25-year old he is.]
It's kind of interesting for the the continuing Avengers' storyline
that we have a 22, 23 hunk of a superhero in 2011, with 1940s social
values who is a virgin, no? Much more interesting material, dramatic
and comedic developments to come from that I would think.
A note off-direct topic: had it ever been established that Captain
America was a real captain in the army? I always thought Rogers's
professional name to be a stage name.
Anim8rFSK
<36314b10-a84a-40c3...@y8g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
jack <jr...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> Also, there is his age. From the story line I would say that Rogers
> is in his early 20s at most. However, Evans easily looks to be the 30
> or so that he is, which might draw us the audience to want a more
> sophisticated relationship between Rogers and Peggy.
Born on the Fourth of July, 1917.
>
> [Non sequiter: it's like that actor who plays the oldest of Noah
> Wyle's sons in Falling Skies. He's supposed to be 17, but looks
> obviously the 25-year old he is.]
See My Incredibly Hot Teenage Babysitter Is A Soulless Bloodsucking
Demon Vampire's Best Friend Erica.
>
> It's kind of interesting for the the continuing Avengers' storyline
> that we have a 22, 23 hunk of a superhero in 2011, with 1940s social
> values who is a virgin, no? Much more interesting material, dramatic
> and comedic developments to come from that I would think.
>
>
> A note off-direct topic: had it ever been established that Captain
> America was a real captain in the army? I always thought Rogers's
> professional name to be a stage name.
It is. Steve Rogers is a private (or at least pretends to be).
--
"Please, I can't die, I've never kissed an Asian woman!"
Shego on "Shat My Dad Says"
David Johnston
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>"David Johnston" wrote in message
>news:li1q27tu1c0mv5kkr...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 23:02:46 -0400, "KalElFan"
>> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> .... A Hollywood brainstorming session:
>>>
>>> Executroid #1: Gone With The Wind with Clark Gable!
>>> Executroid #2: Titanic With Leo DiCaprio!
>>>
>>> A pregnant pause as a challenged junior trainee struggles
>>> to make a connection to the flow.
>>>
>>> Apprentice #14: Captain America with Chris Evans!
>>
>> If you want to say that the Captain America romance subplot was
>> second rate fine. But that's not a compelling argument that it
>> needs to be continued, or that they would have made a lot more
>> money out of giving it a cliche happy ending.
>
>The partial skit above is to make the factually obvious point
>that these are *DIFFERENT* things.
Romance is romance.
I'm saying that the Captain
>America romance subplot was iconically great, until they blew
>it with a Romance Gone Bad crash and burn in the final few
>minutes.
And I'm saying that just because you didn't like the ending doesn't
mean that a different ending would have been more popular with the
public at large. A lot of people _like_ a sad romance.
But I also acknowledged the possibility that they
>could view it as a romance cliffhanger and fix it in the May
>2012 Avengers movie.
How would this make the Avengers movie better?
>
>The compelling argument went over your head a long time
>ago, around the time you fixated on comparatives that don't
>work. In the original post I focused on SF, knowing that some
>might mention tear jerkers generally.
I see no reason why SF's romance should work different from anyone
else's romance. Here's a thing to bear in mind. Happy endings are
for stories that aren't going to see sequels.
David Johnston
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>"David Johnston" wrote in message
>news:pn1q271rrc2fjcsfp...@4ax.com...
>
>> Yes, I can see why saying that I've seen it before means I haven't.
>> But I have. It was for example. how the Door Into Summer ends.
>
>Looked at the Wiki and it's nothing remotely like what I've
>described.
What you described was a person travelling into the future to be with
the man she loved. That's what happened. Since you didn't specify
any other details, that's covered.
>
>And to be clear because you seem embarassed to be specific,
>what we can look forward to is Sharon Carter, Peggy's niece
>played by the gal from The Mentalist, becoming the new love
>interest for Steve.
Probably not actually. That story was back when a niece would have
been the right age
David Johnston
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>"David Johnston" wrote in message
>news:1t1q27dugupkfmt38...@4ax.com...
>
>> You crawled into bed pulled your covers over your head
>> and denied that sad endings are ever popular.
>
>Nope, you just imagined and deemed that I did that, as
>part of yout rampant imagining and deeming.
Oh right. You imagined that science fiction love stories are somehow
different from any other love story.
>
>> Yeah, right. He'll just stick in a happy romantic ending
>> when none is called for or makes sense.
>
>Imagining and deeming that it's stuck in and uncalled for
>and doesn't makle sense is pretty funny, considering you
>think Granny S.H.I.E.L.D.S is what we'll get,
No, I don't. Too much time has passed.
David Johnston
wrote:
>A note off-direct topic: had it ever been established that Captain
>America was a real captain in the army? I always thought Rogers's
>professional name to be a stage name.
In the comics he was a private.
jack
> In article
> <36314b10-a84a-40c3-9b57-4b527b804...@y8g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>
> jack <j...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> > Also, there is his age. From the story line I would say that Rogers
> > is in his early 20s at most. However, Evans easily looks to be the 30
> > or so that he is, which might draw us the audience to want a more
> > sophisticated relationship between Rogers and Peggy.
>
> Born on the Fourth of July, 1917.
>
>
>
> > [Non sequiter: it's like that actor who plays the oldest of Noah
> > Wyle's sons in Falling Skies. He's supposed to be 17, but looks
> > obviously the 25-year old he is.]
>
> See My Incredibly Hot Teenage Babysitter Is A Soulless Bloodsucking
> Demon Vampire's Best Friend Erica.
>
>
>
> > It's kind of interesting for the the continuing Avengers' storyline
> > that we have a 22, 23 hunk of a superhero in 2011, with 1940s social
> > values who is a virgin, no? Much more interesting material, dramatic
> > and comedic developments to come from that I would think.
>
> > A note off-direct topic: had it ever been established that Captain
> > America was a real captain in the army? I always thought Rogers's
> > professional name to be a stage name.
>
> It is. Steve Rogers is a private (or at least pretends to be).
But he was wearing two bars on his collar in the movie.
trotsky
Except on Usenet that "sad romance" is generally with their right hand.
Anim8rFSK
<aa03302e-c14b-4aa4...@h14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
jack <jr...@columbia.edu> wrote:
In his military uniform? Then they got it wrong. Unless they're doing
Ultimate Cap and he's Captain Steve Rogers over there; I've never read
that.
KalElFan
news:aa03302e-c14b-4aa4...@h14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>... he was wearing two bars on his collar in the movie.
Though I didn't count the bars, it seemed pretty clear he was
wearing an officer's uniform. At one point before he starts his
road show, the Colonel (Tommy Lee Jones) also mentions he's
being promoted.
Whether or not the Colonel was joking, and obviously "Captain
America" is not his real name, it did seem like he was Captain
Rogers. I think 95%+ of the viewers would probably be going
in thinking he's a Captain, so it makes sense they'd do it that
way. Whatever continuity or incarnation from the comics that
it fits I don't know. Maybe it's a combination with some new
content.
KalElFan
news:36314b10-a84a-40c3...@y8g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> We know right from the start that the Captain is found frozen,
> just as in his 60s Marvel reincarnation.
Right, but 95%+ of the market that sees this movie does not know
the comic history. So while the audience can probably guess that
Captain America is frozen, and they know for sure he is at the end,
they aren't sure to start. The recovery team doesn't even seem to
know for sure. It could be his shield alone, or he could be frozen
with others. The audience knows this is a genre where anything
can happen anyway, so they just don't get locked in the way the
very small percentage who know the Captain America story might.
Most are immersed in the 40s story within seconds, and it's not
so much that they keep an open mind on how and why the shield,
at least, ended up there. It's that they don't even think about it.
I didn't think about it once while I was watching.
Even the cliffhanger, I think 95%+ of the viewership would be very
surprised (and not pleasantly) if told that Captain America takes up
with a niece or a granddaughter, after a 90-something Peggy dies in
his arms after meeting him, or tries to join S.H.I.E.L.D. but she can't
because she's too old and sick. Or whatever stupid version of option
4 they hopefully don't do.
I think it'd be much better to tell them that he's Captain America
and he never gives up. So he's keeping the date in the sequel, and
be there for The Avengers and Captain America 2. For those who
want more spoiler hints, tell them Thor has a hammer and it does
time travel under exceptional circumstances. :-)
> Now the question is would having a bed scene between him
> and Peggy enhance or take away from the plot.
No, the bed scene's a cliche. If they'd had a bed scene I think I'd
be calling it 99%-1% that the 60s Stupidity stuff is locked in, with
Cap bedding the niece next and Granny Peggy fighting Depends
and Polident corruption.
Here's part of the core of this issue I think:
> Rogers... has high romantic ideals... That kiss scene played an
> important role other than to piss off Peggy.
Of course, and it was part of my original post. I mentioned his
heroism, and that scene and several others. The reason there's
a thread about this is because it *IS* an iconic romance, right up
to and including the kiss and setting the dance and even through
to the cliffhanger. The *character* of Steve Rogers, and the
period setting, are key to why this romance works so well. The
question is what happens next, and the contrast is Stark (pun
intended).
1. Choose one of the lame ass options, including the 60s story
with Granny Peggy while he takes up with the relative. All things
Captain America basically get pissed away in favor of Romance
Gone Bad crapola and maybe flat out slapstick. Rename The
Avengers and call it The Three SuperStooges (Captain America,
Iron Man and Thor). Or:
2. A different path, an iconic romance and a twist on that
never seen before. A path that would still have the fish out of
water opportunity for humor, but also a heart and soul that's
*sincere* in tone amidst the fights and action and stuff blowing
up real good. Peggy Carter is basically the Lois Lane character
in this story, and was from the very start. As played in this
movie, and among the other things I mentioned, she seemed
like a woman ahead of her time. Even technologically, she was
there for the Captain America upgrade.
They have a great opportunity, in this first major incarnation
in modern media, to lay claim to that kind of iconic romance.
It'll be a shame if they blow it, but as my thread title and the
discussion reflects it won't be the first time. I'd rank it a much
bigger mistake than the Superman II ending and not following
up on that.
Joe Ramirez
>
>
> C'mon, are Hollywood writers really so helpless that they
> can't get from A to B here, and do it reasonably well? They
> have the Captain America never gives up canon, so among
> whatever other threats he'll be fighting in tandem with the
> other heroes you betcha he'd be thinking Peggy and their
> date.
Cap only knows why this rather minor criticism of the movie has
occasioned such an overwrought analysis, but at least one element
still remains unclear: What kind of "hero" would try to arrange for
someone to be ripped out of her own time and transported 70 years into
the future just to keep him company? Do you think Captain America
himself would have chosen to leap forward in time if he had had a
choice? If the Red Skull's MacGuffin-tech had transported Cap to a
lonely lunar base, should he have demonstrated his never-say-die ethos
by trying to get Peggy transported there too? Who cares about her
life, career, home, family, and friends -- they had a date!
KalElFan
news:b3753a75-5441-44c8...@e7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
> Cap only knows why this rather minor criticism of the movie
> has occasioned such an overwrought analysis...
Ah, Superman II deja vu.
It's not minor, it's hugely important and central to the prospects
of Captain America. They have the opportunity to establish an
iconic romance that can surpass Superman and Lois Lane by the
end of the Captain America 2 sequel. If they're already planning
it, great. If they aren't, it would almost certainly require only
minor tweaking of The Avengers to implement it and would be
well worth it.
Let's agree to disagree on that (as I assume we do). But I've seen
this again and again and again, in movies and TV series. Romance
Gone Bad is both a damaging mistake AND much more importantly
a huge lost opportunity. Moving along to this good point you made:
> but at least one element still remains unclear: What kind of "hero"
> would try to arrange for someone to be ripped out of her own time
> and transported 70 years into the future just to keep him company?
Excellent point. Do you think there's a chance I'm aware of it? Do
you think the writers might be, if they were given a go to implement
option #6? Do you think my quote you were responding to -- "C'mon,
are Hollywood writers really so helpless that they can't get from A to
B here, and do it reasonably well?" -- contemplated your excellent
point and other details to be dealt with in the script and dialogue?
If you answered "Yes" to all questions in the preceding paragraph,
you're full of... great insight! :-)
I'm going to throw in the towel here and state other obvious things.
Thor is so idiot-obvious as the vehicle for the delivery of Peggy that
it can't possibly pose a copyright or idea theft issue. It's one big
massive "Duh!" The Avengers is a team movie. Thor's going to be
there. We also know, factually per option #6, that Thor will have
*already* retrieved Peggy. He just doesn't know it yet, but he
retrieved her the same day Cap disappeared. And since Thor
doesn't kidnap, yes, DUH, he confirmed her agreement first. Let's
see what our smart writers might choose as Peggy's final line of
dialogue answer:
a. "Woo Hoo!"
b. Something other than "Woo Hoo"
I say b, and let's give 'em some creative scope, eh? A few lines of
dialogue perhaps, between Thor and Peggy. Will Peggy's first
instinct be to shoot Thor? We know Peggy's quick on the trigger
like she was with Cap. So maybe she actually shoots at Thor.
Not my idea, it's just what Peggy does, and did in Captain America.
Just sayin'. Factually. Captain America never gives up, Peggy
Carter shoots at stuff when she has a problem with it. A god
with a hammer pops in on her and I think she has to shoot at
it. She can't help herself, it's an impulsive and instinctive thing.
But then she get answers a few seconds later and she says yes.
She's quite happy to learn Cap's alive and well in 2012.
> Do you think Captain America himself would have chosen to
> leap forward in time if he had had a choice?
Never! In fact, factually speaking again, Cap's characterization
will require that he ask, or have asked off-screen, about the
issue of time travel. He doesn't really belong in 2012, he wants
to be back in the 40s with not just Peggy on their date that night,
but also his buddies for the next few decades. He's a soldier.
Of course you can't always get what you want, and no happy
endings allowed in this case because you can't change history.
I'm not sure who tells Cap that. Maybe Thor? Or a S.H.I.E.L.D.
guy/gal. I'm sure Thor and his hammer have to follow the same
rule though. No changing the course of history. Sorry.
> If the Red Skull's MacGuffin-tech had transported Cap to a
> lonely lunar base, should he have demonstrated his never-say-
> die ethos by trying to get Peggy transported there too?
Of course not. First, he'd find a way off the lonely lunar base
and back to Earth, in time for the date with Peggy. If he were
sent to the lonely lunar base in 2012, then he'd get back to
Earth and Thor would end up doing what he has to do, because
he's already done it. So again Peggy gets brought forward.
We're talking in a meta context here, i.e. that's what the
writers should do IMO, in your hypothetical. They could
write it that the entire Avengers team perishes along with
Cap when the lunar base explodes. Not what I'd do.
> Who cares about her life, career, home, family, and friends --
She does! As in Not You, or If You it doesn't matter because
it's her decision not yours, eh? :-)
Of course, factually, she would never just leave. She'd do her
duty and report her decision to her commanding Colonel. So
I hope they have the budget for a Tommy Lee Jones cameo.
If not, well the record shows he reported she went missing
that late aftrenoon or early evening. Factually, no choice
there. Makes for a better scene though, back when Thor
reminds the Colonel that he never saw any of this.
> they had a date!
Indeed, and if option #6 is chosen they have a date as we post.
Is it kept in The Avengers movie, probably at the end there,
or not until Captain America 2?
Anyway Thor's hammer reveals Peggy's transport. Once Thor
finds out she's gone missing, he has to confirm his hunch that
indeed he did bring her forward. Since the hammer does time
travel, we know it also does recorded history through a viewer
or wormhole look-see thingie or some such. Does he always
have to hammer the thing down to do stuff like that?
So "Show When Peggy Carter Vanished!" and then the hammer
down and thunder and lightning. If Iron Man's in the vicinity, or
God forbid asleep in the vicinity, or even just startled, it's bound
to get a reaction from him, and a dialogue exchange. Handy that,
because the writers could use it to address the key questions the
audience might wonder about.
The map is drawn. There is the exchange of dialogue between
Thor and Iron Man about the issue. I have it and could post it,
and maybe I will. But the main point is that as long as the
executroids make the right decision and choose that 6th and
best option, Thor has no choice. :-)
jack
One thing to consider here: Why do CA and Peggy get to be so
privileged then? They are in the middle of a long and brutal war,
even more so in this semi-alternate universe with magic cubes and dis-
integrater ray guns. Most people lost loved ones and people on the
front lines lost many people they knew well. Peggy still has a job to
do and I have doubts she would be willing to be pulled out of the
middle of the war just to rejoin a "boyfriend" whose relationship is
still platonic. It would be quite selfish actually, if not
traitorous. And who knows, this being sci-fi, Peggy could be
transported out of WWII and we find that the Axis somehow won because
Peggy had some crucial role to play in their ultimate defeat. CA
stayed as realistic as it could and the relationship was a casualty of
war. Now meeting up in the present with a 90+ Peggy, now that would
be good sci-fi and good drama.
David Johnston
> "Joe Ramirez" wrote in message
>
> news:b3753a75-5441-44c8...@e7g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Cap only knows why this rather minor criticism of the movie
> > has occasioned such an overwrought analysis...
>
> Ah, Superman II deja vu.
>
> It's not minor, it's hugely important and central to the prospects
> of Captain America. They have the opportunity to establish an
> iconic romance that can surpass Superman and Lois Lane by the
> end of the Captain America 2 sequel. I
No, they don't. Superman and Lois Lane has 70 years of history behind
it.
> > but at least one element still remains unclear: What kind of "hero"
> > would try to arrange for someone to be ripped out of her own time
> > and transported 70 years into the future just to keep him company?
>
> Excellent point. Do you think there's a chance I'm aware of it?
Well based on your history, I'd assume you'd ignore how strained any
plot development is just as long as it gives you the OTP you want.
Oh, and you'd just assume that the writers would somehow make
something stupid into something not-stupid despite their distinct lack
of a good track record when trying.
> Of course you can't always get what you want, and no happy
> endings allowed in this case because you can't change history.
> I'm not sure who tells Cap that. Maybe Thor? Or a S.H.I.E.L.D.
> guy/gal. I'm sure Thor and his hammer have to follow the same
> rule though. No changing the course of history. Sorry.
You mean by doing things like abducting girls from the past?
> Anyway Thor's hammer reveals Peggy's transport. Once Thor
> finds out she's gone missing, he has to confirm his hunch that
> indeed he did bring her forward. Since the hammer does time
> travel,
The hammer does time travel? That doesn't really fit with Thor's
theme.
KalElFan
news:81cf9f6d-144d-4fa4...@cs9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
> One thing to consider here: Why do CA and Peggy get to be
> so privileged then?
Why did Cap get frozen for 70 years? Out here in a Meta sense,
we know the answer of course. The writers wanted to bring him
forward to 2012 for the Avengers sequel. But within the story,
it's simply what happened.
The situation is identical with Peggy Carter, in that history records
Thor went back, got Peggy's agreement, and transported her back
to 2012. It's simply established fact that Thor Has No Choice. It's
the way it is. Thor and Stark are happy for Steve and Peggy that
it is that way, but no one is shirking their duties or acting in their
own self, let alone selfish, interest. Instead of Edith Keeler Must
Die to use the City on the Edge of Forever example, it's Thor Has
No Choice -- Peggy Carter Must Be Brought Forward.
The "fate" issue, whenever it becomes a focus as when you
raise it here, works in favor of this iconic romance that's
being developed. There is something "special" about the
relationship, as in Superman and Lois. If we look at it from
your point of view with the questions, it's like the gods have
understood that after one is brought forward, so must the
other. It may be because failure to balance it that way
would kill not just billions, but rip the whole time-space
continuum to shreds. :-) We don't know and it needn't
be spelled out.
Here's one example with Downey's character (as Tony Stark
or Iron Man) seeing what Thor sees courtesy the hammer.
Think the Guardian's portal effect in that classic Star Trek
TOS episode again, only costing more and looking like it
cost more. :-)
IRON MAN (OR STARK)
Thor... why are you changing history? You know it
risks killing or altering the existence of billions of
people, right?
THOR
I'm not changing history. This is history. This is
what happened. I just haven't done it yet.
IRON MAN (OR STARK)
Ah, so it's okay then... to bring Steve's girlfriend
back... I mean forward. To here, in fact right HERE
where we are now.
THOR
Yes. In twenty-three minutes from now. If I don't
do this, it will as you say... change history and risk
killing or altering the existence of billions of people.
IRON MAN (OR STARK)
Well then you better get on it as long as... Peggy is
okay with this, right?
THOR
She is, because I WILL ask her and she said yes.
IRON MAN (OR STARK)
You mixed three tenses in the same sentence there.
THOR
It's not uncommon in godspeak.
IRON MAN (OR STARK)
Why did you do this by the way? I mean the first
time you did it -- when you didn't do it because
you had to.
THOR
I only did it once. Cause and effect is complicated.
Don't overthink it. It can make your head explode.
Especially when it involves another god intervening.
IRON MAN (OR STARK)
Another god intervening? Fate? C'mon, that's no
answer! What, the gods have such big heads that
theirs won't explode? My head could explode from
not knowing the answer. What about my head?
ON IRON MAN HELMET
Which Stark has just quasi-accidentally dropped or tossed.
:-)
Returning to our post here...
> They are in the middle of a long and brutal war...
Yes, but again that and all the rest of what you wrote is
compleletly historical now. It's trumped and addressed
by the fact it's simply the way it happened.
> Now meeting up in the present with a 90+ Peggy, now
> that would be good sci-fi and good drama.
I saw it and it flew by in 90 seconds, if that, in The Event
as I said. It's not particularly good sci-fi or good drama.
In this Captain America context, it would be so transient
as to be the worst kind of sop moment, given the great
potential of what they threw away. We may well get it
though!
David Johnston
> "jack" wrote in message
>
> news:81cf9f6d-144d-4fa4...@cs9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > One thing to consider here: Why do CA and Peggy get to be
> > so privileged then?
>
> Why did Cap get frozen for 70 years? Out here in a Meta sense,
> we know the answer of course. The writers wanted to bring him
> forward to 2012 for the Avengers sequel. But within the story,
> it's simply what happened.
>
> The situation is identical with Peggy Carter, in that history records
> Thor went back, got Peggy's agreement, and transported her back
> to 2012. It's simply established fact that Thor Has No Choice.
Yeah, I've never been fond of the idea that free will doesn't exist
and we all helpless passengers in our lives.
KalElFan
> Yeah, I've never been fond of the idea that free will
> doesn't exist and we [are] all helpless passengers in
> our lives.
We agree, but you either don't understand the concept
of free will or are just bastardizing the context again.
Thor has free will, Peggy has free will, they all have free
will and exercised it. The "Thor Has No Choice" in the
thread title refers to Thor judging one choice to be
100% correct, and the other 100% incorrect. He could
absolutely choose to not go back and get Peggy, he
simply dismisses it as an obviously bad choice.
Anim8rFSK
<b5387391-0b35-4aec...@a2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
David Johnston <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thor's hammer has always had time travel capabilities.
jack
Why do you assume Peggy, obviously a patriotic fighter, will say
"yes"? Would it not be more likely that relieved to know Rogers is
alive, would say "come back after the war is over." Your argument
assumes that Peggy would just drop the war and pop over to 2012. It's
a nice "kill your grandfather" time paradox you have speculated, but
then why does Thor waste his time traveling gift on something in the
grand scheme of things so trivial? Why not just go back and knock off
Hitler?
David Johnston
Because it's not what he's predestined to do?
KalElFan
news:aveu27h4on85259bh...@4ax.com...
> ... [Cap] has no way of knowing how long he might really live
> or even begin to age normally... He has to enter into all
> future relationships, both romantic and platonic, realizing
> he may well outlive several generations of lovers and friends,
> not unlike Wolverine or Conner McLeod in "Highlander" or
> the guy Scott Glenn played "The Keep".
Thor is a god and inherently has the same immortality issue.
Let's add Captain America now, under your "vision," and
we have at least three Marvel heroes about which we can
say "He has to enter into all future relationships, both
romantic and platonic, realizing he may well outlive several
generations of lovers and friends."
I propose a new series in the Marvel genre called:
The Super-Odd Couple
The hook will be that's it's a superhero team-up of two
supeheroes any given movie. The first trilogy of movies
has Thor, the older god guy, and Captain America, the
1940s soldier guy, fight various evils. Make the three
movies all at once so they can be released the same
month in three consecutive years.
At the end of the third movie, Thor gets called away on
deity business for a few years, so Cap needs a new
roommate. He asks Wolverine, and Wolvie says yes.
There's a big fight between them in the middle movie
of their trilogy, titled:
Super-Odd Couple IV: The Claws vs. The Shield
Best. Super-Odd Couple Movie. Ever.
But sadly...
Over the course of their third movie, Captain America
realizes that the ass-kicking he took from Wolverine in
IV has made it impossible for him to stay roommates
with him. The flashbacks in Cap's mind, to Peggy, have
become nightmares. Each one gets interrupted by
Wolverine and The Claws, metaphorically reminding
Cap that he can never have a "normal" relationship
again. It will always be Odd, and doomed, even when
it's with a fellow immortal. The other immortal will
end up traumatizing Cap, just like Thor did when he
left poor Cap exactly three years prior, which was of
course also three movies prior.
In fact for each of these Oddverse movies, stake out
each September perhaps, an Odd release month but
that makes it in keeping with the theme.
As fate would have it, the third trilogy begins as Thor
returns from his deity business. He needs a place to
hang his hammer, hence the title:
Super-Odd Couple VII: Home is Where The Hammer Is
So Thor and Wolverine hook up for VII to IX, and all
three movies will explore that theme of what "Home"
means to a superhero. The final movie in the "Home
Trilogy," as as it will come to be known in the genre,
is titled:
Super-Odd Couple IX: Home is Where The Shield Was
In which both Thor and Wolverine get sad and drunk as
they think about Cap, their mutual Odd Ex. It's a Happy
Ending though, as Cap returns right at the end of IX. He's
worked out his nightmare troubles and bears news of a
looming threat to the Oddverse. The last insert in IX
reads "To Be Continued In..." and then:
Super-Odd Trio: Three's Company Kicks Ass
It's in big Ultra-Super3D, by then the latest tech, and
anticipation builds for the following September.
As SPOILERS reveal, the one-instalment finale to the first
Odderse decade (a.k.a. 1-OD), will see our Odd Trio of
Captain America, Thor and Wolverine, all roomies now,
fight against the double threat of both The Avengers
and X-Men.
It gets personal. Iron Man and Hulk were really ticked
off at Cap and Thor leaving for the Super-Odd team,
and likewise the X-Men at Wolverine's betrayal.
The Avengers have become a trio now too, with Spider-
Man joining Hulk and Iron Man. X-Men was decimated
after Wolverine left, so they're down to a trio as well --
Beast, Colossus, and Professor X, aka Two Brawns and
a Brain, which makes them a much more formidable
combination than you might think.
So the "Three's Company" in the title has a double
(or is that triple?) meaning. It's not just one trio or
even two trios, but three trios of frustrated lonely
superguys.
Two of those trios, Avengers and X-Men, have been
corrupted by the Mega-Cube, the most highly evolved
form of Pure Evil in the universe. As a Cube by nature,
and heir to the Cuboid Throne of prior cubic evils in
the Marvel Universe, it continues the "Three" theme
of this blockbuster finale to the first Oddverse decade.
Mega-Cube thought it could use The Avengers and The
X-Men, once both were corrupted, to bring down the
only remaining force for Good, the lonely immortals
Cap, Thor and Wolvie. Mega-Cube was wrong. There's
even an ending tribute to that Nomad episode of Star
Trek TOS, where Mega-Cube goes out babbling "Error...
error..." before it self-destructs in shame of its own
imperfection.
Yes, a failed Mega-Cube can feel shame. Ultimately,
it was Thor and his Hammer striking the fatal blow
to Ultimate Evil. Meta-phorically, the god of Thunder
also puts an end to all this nonsense. As Thor sums
it up quit nicely in the Unrated and Extended Special
Collector's Edition Cut...
THOR
C'mon guys, we need to get laid.
And off our nine heroes will go, about each one of
which we can forever say, in the Immortal words of
Russell of Usenet...
> [Blank-Guy] DOESN'T get the girl!
If the Super-Oddverse evoked a snicker or two, great.
But underlying it is derisive skewing of a genre that
deserves what it gets if it can't find a sincere heart
and soul once in a while, especially when it's handed
out on a silver platter.
KalElFan
news:3569262c-3f4e-4bf6...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Why do you assume Peggy, obviously a patriotic fighter,
> will say "yes"? ...
She's already said yes. I'll get back to the "What *WAS*
Peggy's Motivation?" issue in a bit, but it'd be trivial to
write it any number of ways. First a few corrections to
other things.
> ... It's a nice "kill your grandfather" time paradox...
It's not a paradox. History is unchanged. All that happens
is Peggy is brought forward by Thor, while Cap was brought
forward by the plane crash and freezing in the ice. You
wouldn't say Cap's crash caused a paradox, right? He
just basically disappeared from or left the 40s. and then
found himself in 2011. Same with Peggy. Does that
make it easier to understand? There's no paradox
at all.
> ... why does Thor waste his time traveling gift on
> something in the grand scheme of things so trivial?
It's not trivial. If Thor *doesn't* go back to get Peggy,
he'd create a parodox. He has the free will to do so,
just like anyone. But a god with a hammer knows
that Peggy Carter Must Be Brought Forward.
> Why not just go back and knock off Hitler?
Because again that would create a paradox.
Back to what was Peggy's motivation, it would be further
addressed in the scene in the past when Thor goes
back. I mentioned Thor probably gets shot at by Peggy
initially, and the Colonel (Tommy Lee Jones) would also
become part of the scene before she leaves. There
would be a period in between for at least selective
excerpts of Thor explaining the situation to Peggy and
her choice being made.
Remember that even though Thor arrives back in 23
minutes time in the future, an hour could be spent in
the past discussing it with her. Thor could not just
tell but show Peggy, via the hammer, everything that
she needs to make her decision. Again, we'd only
see the key excerpts from it, so maybe a minute or
so of time spent on the conversation itself, but with
perhaps a clock in the background illustrating that
an hour passes in the 1940s.
Also remember the dynamic here is there's no reason
not to have Peggy make a completely informed decision.
Thor can tell her the war gets won without her. He can
tell her that the far greater danger, to his and now Steve's
future, is if she alters that future by deciding not to go to
2012. She has the free will to change Thor's and now
Steve's future, creating a paradox. Conceivably, the war
could be won quicker, but it could also be lost. The
scenario is such that even if Peggy had some personal
reason to stay, she'd almost certainly stll say "Yes" given
the scenario. The war gets won, Steve is alive and well
in 2012. The "duty" becomes more not to fight whatever
god or fate or destiny or other forces seem to be saying
2012 is the way to go.
I'd also write it that she had no personal reason to stay
though. Asked about her family and so on at an earlier
point, as Thor goes on about that possibility she just
interrups him and brushes that off as an issue. The
Colonel also urges her to go, knowing that she wants
to and he makes some quip to that effect.
KalElFan
> Superman and Lois Lane has 70 years of history behind it.
Great 1938 setup, but then 40 years mostly spinning its wheels
or in window dressing and sop mode. There have only been
three incarnations that ever really got it right, but all three
botched it. The first and best one was the Reeve movie in 1978.
It's still in the Top 100 all time adjusted domestic gross. The
only Marvel character on that list is Spider-Man, all three movies.
It's no coincidence that Spiper-Man had the strongest romance
element. The upside down kiss is arguably the most, if not the
only really iconic moment in the Marvel franchise.
The next Superman incarnation that aced it was about 1 season
of Lois & Clark, mid-season 2 to mid-season 3 when it hit as high
as 22M+ viewers on ABC. Huge numbers and close to Top 10
at one point.
Third was the proto-Lois named Chloe Sullivan, who actually had
the longest good run in the earliest seasons of Smallville, through
mid-season 2 or so. That "Rush" episode may be the ending of
the best of it. This was The WB and the show was drawing up
around 9 million viewers right after the peak of the Chloe-as-
proto-Lois arc at the end of season 1.
Though each one of those imploded, it's rare for any superhero
story to ever get it that right at all. Until the ending blew it, I'd
put this first Captain America movie right up there with the first
Reeve movie at the top of the list. If they don't fix it, then it
plummets to worse than Superman II for having let it slip
away.
> ... you'd just assume that the writers would somehow
> make something stupid into something not-stupid
You have little ability to tell the difference and even less
ability to make a case. You haven't had a single successful
argument and most of the time it's just imagining and
deeming and quips.
But sure there's always the risk that writers will blow it
even if it's handed to them. The inherently very strong
Superman romance has been a case in point, over and
over again. It's getting worse in this reboot and I would
not be surprised if in Man of Steel as well, to the extent
they try to pave the way for sequels without permission
of the estates.
If you were also alluding to my not filling in every blank,
it's because posting every detail, or dialogue, makes it
practically impossible for them to use. Picking one of
only six options for the actress to be back is a no-brainer.
Bringing Peggy to 2012 (option 6) and using Thor to do
it is a no-brainer. Stating the obvious, factual issues
that flow from that is also obvious. But the scene with
dialogue is too specific.
> The hammer does time travel? That doesn't really
> fit with Thor's theme.
Anim8r has already confirmed it to you, but the wiki did
not seem to suggest this was a power often used, which
makes it perfect here.
I was looking at The Avengers spoilers and it doesn't look
like the kind of movie that will have much room for Cap's
romantic subplot. Which is also good, because I think
most of what I've described probably best takes place
in Cap's own movie series. Maybe a few bread crumbs
and then a hand-off of some sort. I'll still put it at 80-
20 we end up with the stupid stuff, though the fact that
you're backing off on it suggests even the most obtuse
can see a problem with 90-something Granny Peggy and
taking up with the granddaughter.
KalElFan
news:620fa407-19c1-4074...@h18g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> ... These heroes are defined by their separation from
> conventional human society, not their integration into it.
Their existence is based on creative works by humanity, for
humanity. Like all good SF, which most superhero fare is
not, it can try to reflect on human issues from a different
perpective. But to suggest that somehow means any kind
of rules, let alone requiring separation from conventional
human society, or buying in to an anti-romance and long-
term relationship fixation, is ludicrous.
KalElFan
> What you described was a person travelling into the
> future to be with the man she loved...
For those unfamiliar with the story you cite (as I was
until I read the full wiki plot section), it involves the
protagonist intentionally going forward via freezing
or suspended animation, to escape an unhappy life
(a business/invention deal gone bad). He goes from
1970 to 2000 (the story was written in 1956).
Then he travels back using a time machine someone
else invented. He undoes the damage from the bad
business deal.
Then he refreezes himself, and so does the woman
that marriage records had shown he'd married. So
now they're both in suspended animation and they
wake up in 2001 and get married.
By definition it creates and/or destroys at least a
second and maybe a third timeline, because the
marriage is a paradox.
Anyway, it's obvious you did exaxtly what I said you
did. Time travel inevitably involves... DUH... time travel
and of course there have to be superficial similarities
between stories.
Space Seed had Khan and others moving forward via
suspended animation, some of them were husband
and wife I'm sure. It's such a completely different
context than the superhero Cap who finds himself in
2012, and a god of Thunder with a hammer who goes
back and gets Cap's girlfriend because history shows
it's what he did.
One thing I did note in the Heinlein story writeup was
a cat being mentioned. I can't remember if the cat
travelled or not. Anyway, that scene in the past, where
Thor picks up Peggy, I mentioned Thor might talk about
relatives, etc., and Peggy brushes that off. My plan was
she'd say "I have a cat" as she did that, and then the
cat would be brought forward too. Thor, on return,
would assure Stark that he checked and the hammer
confirmed the cat's transport would not affect history. :-)
I was thinking more Schrodinger's Cat, and Data's Cat
in TNG. But since I'd read the Heinlein update after
and saw that had a cat, I figured you'd be out there
with "Door to Summer had a cat too!". It's like the
whedonites where Buffy did every second thing that
gets mentioned, and did it first.
So I left it out there so I could post that cat amendment
here, along with the rest of the response to your post.
I'm happy to retroactively add Heinein to Schrodinger
and Data as the inspiration.
Ronald O. Christian
Um, remind me why we care about this again?
Ron
-
2003 FLHTCUI "Noisy Glide"
http://www.christianfamilywebsite.com
http://www.ronaldchristian.com
KalElFan
[Russell had written]:
>> Captain America... [is] in stasis, [Peggy] gets old and in a later
>> time he hooks up with her great niece or her grand-daughter
>> or something.
>
> Just like Austin Powers -- a standard time-traveling superhero
> trope. :)
Oh, *behave*! That's obviously another great reason not to
do it, and researching it a bit more it gets worse than Austin
Powers. It seems there was a sister of Peggy, Sharon Carter.
Then Sharon Carter (same name) became a niece of Peggy
in the 60s incarnation. The niece was defintely a love interest
of Captain America; I'm only guessing the earlier sister version
named Sharon was as well.
Later, there was a daughter of niece Sharon by some other
guy I'm assuming. No, I'm not assuming. I'm hoping to the
gods, and aren't soap operas great, that it would have been
by some other guy. Anyway that great niece, Shannon Carter,
became American Dream, a female version of Captain America.
The original Captain America gives her the shield of a Captain
America from a dark alternate universe.
Don't know if Cap got it on with Shannon aka American Dream,
but why not? Instead of dinner or roses, give the latest closest
Carter relatve gal a shield! If they let this enter the Cinematic
realm, Cap is one sick puppy in a long line of Cap sick puppies.
When the little weakling guy got his upgrade, the seek and
destroy enemies protocol must've had a side effect protocol --
seek out and frack the closest relative of Peggy you can find
every time you wake up! :-)
Whedon probably won't be able to resist that story. The gal
from the Mentalist probably plays the great niece. Cap will
be grooming her, but then some Skrull who's shape-shifted
into 40s Peggy, played by Atwell, will snap the great niece's
neck. It'll be a homage to that Buffy series nosedive moment
where Angel snapped Jenny's neck. Whedon getting his fix
ought to be great for business, just like it was for Buffy and
Dollhouse! :-/ x 3
I'll hope the 20% shot comes in and they make the play for
a Lois & Clark caliber romance.
KalElFan
news:fns137d9ej7e39meu...@4ax.com...
> Um, remind me why we care about this again?
The Department of We, or DOW as We calls it, is down
the Hall on Usenet, just past the Tuck Shop. So you'd
have to check with them on why We cares. :-)
Here at KalElFan Central, we is me. We care because
we believe in encouraging a Quest For Excellence in
all fields of human endeavor.
An iconic romance element means nothing at all like
"And they lived happily ever after..." At the end of an
incarnation, sure. Alan Moore's "Whatever Happened
to the Man of Tomorrow" works with that wink at the
end precisiely because Lois & Clark are established as
an iconic romance couple. They've been that all along,
so he gives them a happy ending.
But until the end of an incarnation, of course all fiction
needs to have challenges or conflict and so on that the
characters face. They can't just sit there from the very
beginning of the story to the end of it living happily ever
after. In the action/adventure/fantasy/SF/Superhero
genres that's a total straw man argument because it's
idiot obvious that it never happens. The A-plot in those
genres is always something other than romance, and
the A-plot rules out "happily ever after" -- movie after
movie, episode after episode.
In "Thor Has No Choice" Thor can be thought of as
any god, fate, destiny, power, device or mechanism
that seems to be bringing the two characters together.
The writers and other powers that be are gods of this
story as they are any others, so they too are Thor in
that metaphor. They have a choice to keep going with
the sister of Peggy, niece of Peggy, great niece of Peggy,
etc., or can treat this first movie as the important new
beginning it is.
Do something different and make a Lois & Clark play
for the best iconic romance in the genre. Stop the
Austin Powers madness and say Peggy is it. No need
to use the more dated Peggy nickname for Margaret
if that's an issue. Use Maggie. The name Margaret
has about a dozen nicknames including Molly. It can
become part of the iconic romance and mythos that
Peggy Carter may decide to adopt a new nickname for
Margaret in a new incarnation, unless Peggy has made
a comeback at the time. :-)
KalElFan
in message news:lgn137hjcjfqpj8aq...@4ax.com...
> Has anybody ever told you you have waaaay too much free time?
There's always time for a good skewering. That Super-Odd
Couple piece is instantly one of my all-time favorites, and
I quite enjoyed writing it. After one typo correction and a
few edits, it'll be a keeper.
Having a strong romance element in Marvel, their own
equivalent of Superman-Lois, would be the exception
not the rule. It can't possibly be a bad thing to have a
romance element of that caliber, especially when it's
been handed to them in this movie.
Below is a link to a video interview of Hayley Atwell, from
last week as part of the press junket for Captain America.
It's from collider.com, a geek-type site that Alexa ranks
3,286 in the U.S. By comparison AICN is at 1,695. The
interviewer thought the romance was one of the best
things in the movie, and asked about the possibility of
an 88-year-old Peggy, or flashback prequel-type scenes,
in the sequel(s).
Atwell basically ran with it to the effect that whatever they
had in mind would be good, but she had no idea what
that was. She's been signed for follow-ups, and I took
that to mean including The Avengers if they want her for
that. The interviewer asked if they'd tested out Old Peggy
makeup when she was cast and she said no. Anyone who
wants to see the full interview it's here:
http://collider.com/hayley-atwell-interview-captain-america-the-first-avenger/102906/#more-102906
Ronald O. Christian
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>"Ronald O. Christian" wrote in message
>news:fns137d9ej7e39meu...@4ax.com...
>
>> Um, remind me why we care about this again?
>Here at KalElFan Central, we is me. We care because
>we believe in encouraging a Quest For Excellence in
>all fields of human endeavor.
Yes, but, you understand that this is idle entertainment, right? Just
wonderin'.
KalElFan
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:47:49 -0400, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Ronald O. Christian" wrote in message
>> news:fns137d9ej7e39meu...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Um, remind me why we care about this again?
>>
>> Here at KalElFan Central, we is me. We care because
>> we believe in encouraging a Quest For Excellence in
>> all fields of human endeavor.
>
> Yes, but, you understand that this is idle entertainment,
> right? Just wonderin'.
I wouldn't diminish it with the word idle. It's entertainment.
A multi-billion if not trillion-dollar industry worldwide that
provides probably tens of million of jobs, and entertains a
couple of billion people. This is a place where "we" post
about entertainment, which puts your post in the dubious
Usenet and online tradition of "But it's just a TV show!" and
the like. If the weightier, :-/, political discussions are more
to your liking there's lots of that around here too.
Ronald O. Christian
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>"Ronald O. Christian" wrote in message
>news:5f1637hg6khpaj36u...@4ax.com...
>
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:47:49 -0400, "KalElFan"
>> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Ronald O. Christian" wrote in message
>>> news:fns137d9ej7e39meu...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>> Um, remind me why we care about this again?
>>>
>>> Here at KalElFan Central, we is me. We care because
>>> we believe in encouraging a Quest For Excellence in
>>> all fields of human endeavor.
>>
>> Yes, but, you understand that this is idle entertainment,
>> right? Just wonderin'.
>
>I wouldn't diminish it with the word idle
In Thor's case, I would. I mean, it was ok, but not something to
spend a lot of thought on.
Ken from Chicago
KalElFan, long story short:
Captain America & Peggy Carter are no Superman & Lois.
Their romance is not the same, not even close. Cap & Peggy were NOT meant to
be, while obviously Superman / Kal-El / Clark & Lois are. Sure, SUPERMAN
RETURNS was a major disappointment on the Clois front (because the REAL
Superman does not stalk Lois Lane, maybe a Red-K or parallel universe or
brainwashed or bizarro version does, but not the original recipe, no way, no
how, no sir), but Cap's failure to close the deal with Maggie in CAPTAIN
AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER does not in any way cast shadow one on Clark &
Lois or their potential future romance in future movies.
You know it. I know it. Superman & Lois Lane shippers know it.
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Now the DC Comics relaunch of the DC n(ew)U(niverse) is another matter,
because apparently they are One More Day-ing Clark & Lois' marriage.
KalElFan
news:w8adncFsFfOglqnT...@giganews.com...
> ... Cap & Peggy were NOT meant to be ...
Stories are *meant* to be told and retold in different ways,
adapted and so on. If the original Superman hadn't been,
there wouldn't have been a Lois, or if there had she'd have
been like Bonnie to Superman's Clyde. Siegel's first take on
Superman in the mid-1930s was Evil.
There are still a few online here and elsewhere who wail
about the Spider-Man movie trilogy "getting the girlfriends
in the wrong order". They'd have preferred Gwen Stacy as
in the comics, with all the angst and her death or whatever
other nonsense. Meanwhile, the three Spider-Man movies
are the only three Marvel ones on the Top 100 unadjusted
domestic gross list. The romance element was integral to
that from the get-go, with the iconic upside-down kiss being
the signature moment of the trilogy and arguably the entire
Marvel franchise.
Even this Captain America movie has already made changes.
I've seen the writeups on the original in 1941. He punches
Hitler in the jaw and it sold a million copies. It was selling
more than Time Magazine. The first proposed name for the
character was SuperAmerican. No love interest in sight that
I can find reference to -- no Peggy at all.
The first Carter apparently doesn't show up until the 1960s,
circa 1966 and it's Sharon Carter. Peggy shows up in the
*backstory* a few months after that in 1966, as an American
fighting with the French Resistance. They dated, but she and
Cap lost track of each other.
Here in this movie, they have Margaret "Peggy" Carter with
the "Stategic Scientific Reserve," led by Colonel Chester Phillips
played by Tommy Lee Jones. Peggy Carter's involved in all the
scientific aspects including Captain America's recruitment (when
he's the weakling guy) and the creation process itself.
In that interview I posted, Atwell mentions her favorite deleted
scene was an extension of the chase that happens when the
traitor guy destroys all the equipment. (It's basically the writer
device used to ensure there's only one Captain America). She
hijacks a car or cab by opening the door and tossing the driver
out, so she can keep up with the chase of the traitor guy.
I've previously mentioned the other things about the character
that make her ideally suited for the moving forward to 2012 --
it's like she's *made* for it, a woman far ahead of her time.
If she wasn't a useable character, some meek 20-something
in a clothing factory back home in America or some such, then
she wouldn't be so obviously an iconic romance prospect.
She can be part of S.H.I.E.L.D as easily as she was part of the
Strategic Scientific Reserve. And the story can still *adapt* a
lot of the subsequent elements to good effect, just as they've
*already* adapted much. Slavish adherence to some obscure
precedent or continuity is nuts, even when it does exist and
it *doesn't* here. They've already adapted.
By all means bring on the niece and great niece as part of the
story, just not as (eww) romantic interests. Use the great niece
as a pointer to what happened, Peggy disappearing the same
day as she factuially had to if that option #6 is chosen. They
could both be working with S.H.I.E.L.D in minor roles. Have
them named Sharon and Shannon respectively. It becomes
an adaptation of the comics, like much else already has been.
Kill one of them off at some point for drama's sake.
But when the dark alternate universe Captain America shield
becomes available, and the American Dream superhero identity,
I say that's made for Maggie Carter. Maybe even in this movie
series, but if on TV should the series be called Captain America,
The New Adventures of Captain America, or Maggie & Steve:
The New Adventures of Captain America?
The possibilities are there, if they establish the iconic romance.
If not, thenbeyond being part of the Avengers I think you ca
kiss this incarnation goodbye except for its fame as the one
that blew this opportunity. Somebody else may come along
and do it right, or it may just fade into oblivion like it mostly
did for the last 50 years. Sometimes you don't get a second
shot.
Anyway, factually, in terms of any "meant to be" rule of any
kind, you'd be completely full of the same crap they've already
blown to smithereens. In your opinion perhaps, Cap & Peggy
were NOT meant to be *AND* no Captain America incarnation
should ever change that. Presumably, you support the serial-
fracking Cap who stalks through time the closest living relative
of Peggy. Beyond that "support" (ha!) your opinion is as baseless
as it gets. Neither Marvel nor Disney (oh, the irony) are forced
to go down that path, nor any other path that one in a thousand
think is "meant" to be. They can consider and reconsider before
they flush what they built here down the toilet.
KalElFan
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:42:58 -0400, "KalElFan"
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't [modify "entertainment"] with the word idle
>
> In Thor's case, I would. I mean, it was ok, but not
> something to spend a lot of thought on.
Have you seen Captain America yet? If nothing else it's
very different, I'd say unique, when it comes to the super-
hero or even the SF genre generally.
They have this great setup where (i) an iconic romance-
in-waiting is established, but then (ii) there's a cliffhanger
in the introductory story where they leave half of what
they just set up behind. If someone can cite any new
incarnation of a hero-based creative property that's done
that, post it.
So it caught my attention, and the thread here isn't about
Thor. It started with Romance Gone Bad, and the second
half got renamed Thor Has No Choice, where Thor is a
metaphor. He's a metaphor for both (i) the writer(s) or
Powers That Be who are gods of any story including this
one, and (ii) whatever god, fate, destiny, device, mechanism
or other tool is used to implement an iconic romance, or
achieve any other worthy creative goal.
So Thor's a tool, and in this case he's used as the equivalent
of (i) the Guardian and (ii) Spock's Tricorder in that City on
the Edge of Forever episode. Instead of Edith Keeler Must
Die, the writing objective is Margaret Carter Must Be Brought
Forward. Why? Because history records that's what Thor did.
And I showed how some in-character dialogue between Thor
and Iron Man, barely more than a page or one minute of it,
can provide the necessary exposition for that in a fun way.
I've also provided the issues that factually flow from the
creative decision to bring her forward, including addressing
issues of motivation and so on, so it reinforces the objective.
Upthread you alluded to the way a B-movie or story may have
accomplished this in the old days. "We will go to level 5 and
perhaps we will find your girlfriend frozen there." These
days, something iconic like the Trek episode is the way to go.
The god Thor is the obvious way. There's an extended version
of the dialogue I posted where Thor has never done this kind
of thing before, but has heard of it being done before, once
by his father. He serves to implicitly allude to a kind of cosmic
connection between Steven Rogers and Margaret Carter, which
is exactly the creative objective here if the powers that be
make the right choice.
KalElFan
> ... Meanwhile, the three Spider-Man movies are the only
> three Marvel ones on the Top 100 unadjusted domestic
> gross list.
As I'd posted before, I meant the adjusted for inflation list.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
Marvel has three movies on that list, all the Spider-Man
trilogy. DC also has three, the first Reeve Superman movie
in 1978 being the oldest. The other two are The Dark Knight
and Burton's first Batman movie. If you think romance
played no factor at all in those two Batman movies, guess
again.
Invid Fan
<kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
> (ii) there's a cliffhanger
> in the introductory story where they leave half of what
> they just set up behind. If someone can cite any new
> incarnation of a hero-based creative property that's done
> that, post it.
>
If pressed I'm sure we could find bad movies where part way through
they basically decide to ignore what was being set up and do something
else :) I'm sure it's done well in this case, but I wouldn't hold that
up as some hallmark of good script writing.
--
Chris Mack "If we show any weakness, the monsters will get cocky!"
'Invid Fan' - 'Yokai Monsters Along With Ghosts'
KalElFan
> In article <99j972...@mid.individual.net>, KalElFan
> <kale...@yanospamhoo.com> wrote:
>
>> (ii) there's a cliffhanger
>> in the introductory story where they leave half of what
>> they just set up behind. If someone can cite any new
>> incarnation of a hero-based creative property that's done
>> that, post it.
>
> If pressed I'm sure we could find bad movies where part way
> through they basically decide to ignore what was being set
> up and do something else :) I'm sure it's done well in this
> case, but I wouldn't hold that up as some hallmark of good
> script writing.
It's not so much script writing or plot twists, it's more the
strategic or big picture issues, especially when the movie or
TV series is intended as ongoing. If we broadened it to
things like the Dallas Bobby-in-the-shower season wipe,
that might qualify under your first sentence if it were a
movie that ended that way.
Even there I don't think it would fit what I was alluding to.
Dallas was more akin to a full reboot of one season of an
established series that the powers that be must not have
liked. You also have things like St. Elsewhere and one of
the Bob Newhart shows, and I gather Roseanne, that may
frame the whole series with an ending that puts it in a
different context. You can kind of take it or leave it in
terms of your own interpretation, and the series is over
anyway.
The closest comparison I can make to the romance element
of the Captain America movie, was that I Am Number Four
movie earlier this year. IANF was nowhere near as good as
Captain America, and neither was the romance as well set
up. But they did try to "deem" it an iconic romance, by
having the hero alien guy's race taking one mate for life.
So he falls for the human gal, who splits up with her bad
boyfriend and then they get the hero and her together.
At the end though, he just ups and leaves, while the human
gal is standing there with the now previously bad boyfriend.
The only thing more bizarre was when I researched the whole
history and writing of the thing. Long meltdown story we
won't get into here. It only made $55 million domestic even
though I think they had visions of a big blockbuster Harry
Potter type series or something. There was a Number Six
female who kinda stole the show briefly, but after movies
like Sucker Punch and a few others I think there's even less
chance that female heroine instalment sustains its own movie,
especially after the first debacle.
KalElFan
to addressing]
"David Johnston" wrote in message
news:1t2r27tk5l7r8hvme...@4ax.com...
> Here's a thing to bear in mind. Happy endings are
> for stories that aren't going to see sequels.
This was ludicrous even in the context of what you'd been
unsuccessfully trying to argue. Superman: The Movie had
what many considered an over-the-top happy ending and
the romance element was at the center of that. It was
about top 5 all time.
Star Wars (IV, the first movie) had an over-the-top and
triumphant happy ending. Its sequel had what everyone
knew was a cliffhanger, but then back to the happy ending
in Return of the Jedi.
Back to the Future, happy ending and a romance component
involving Marty's parents.
On the other hand, Superman II is the one that had the
bittersweet stupid ending, and it not only did much worse
at the box office it sunk the series.
Meanwhile, the *irrelevant* comparatives of things like
Casablanca and GWTW are movies with either no sequels,
or sequels become objects of derision because the first
movies were iconic classics.
Love Story should have had a planned sequel too under
your theory. I know it had one (Oliver's Story), and maybe
they did plan it for all I know. But it's more in the category
of ridiculed sequels. Once you nuke a story with a very
sad ending to an iconic love story, the market for the first
movie is incredibly limited compared to blockbuster-size
movies, and the market for a sequel is even less.
So your quips and fallacies were just in meltdown mode
at this point, too moronic for words at the time and I
just left the post for later followup. Where do you get
these maxims? Is there a club or something? Does
anybody actually think about them?
I'll take a stab at the answer. The maxim is filtered. It
starts with a typical "... and they lived happily ever after"
last line from a fairy tale. Then some idiot, somewhere,
decided that meant any given story or movie that had a
happy ending could never have a sequel. They skipped
the "happily ever after..." ending line that -- wait for it --
*announced* that the frickin' thing was intended to be
over and not have sequels. If you don't intend to end it
you just start the next instalment with a new adventure.
There are all kinds of supporting characters or buddy-
type teamups in fiction and they remain stable, stories
getting told and retold. The writers/PTB *don't* have
to reset a romance let alone an iconic romance story,
yet they rarely even try to build one despite evidence
that it can pay huge dividends. It's just a crutch, worse
than the out-of-context maxims for idiots that it hides
behind.
David Johnston
> [Just another fallacious maxim here that I hadn't got around
> to addressing]
>
> "David Johnston" wrote in message
> news:1t2r27tk5l7r8hvme...@4ax.com...
>
>> Here's a thing to bear in mind. Happy endings are
>> for stories that aren't going to see sequels.
>
> This was ludicrous even in the context of what you'd been
> unsuccessfully trying to argue. Superman: The Movie had
> what many considered an over-the-top happy ending and
> the romance element was at the center of that.
And yet the next movie was not in fact about them living happily ever
after.
It was
> about top 5 all time.
>
> Star Wars (IV, the first movie) had an over-the-top and
> triumphant happy ending.
As long as you ignore the detail that they were still in the middle of a
war that they had not yet won.
KalElFan
> And yet [Superman II] was not in fact about them living
> happily ever after.
You concede my point *and* that you bastardized the "happily
ever after" context. The fact they screwed it up in Superman II
does not alter that the first movie went about top 5 all time,
with a purely happy ending and a triumphant smile and flyby
for the camera at the end there. They didn't have to screw it
up in Superman II.
Likewise Star Wars only extended its story with The Empire
Strikes Back. It didn't have to and Lucas didn't know that it
would. It depended on the success of the first, and that
upbeat ending of the first had everything to do with its
success. It could have stopped there but it did so well that
they made not just a sequel but made a trilogy. So another
two-parter with the cliffhanger at the end of ESB.
David Johnston
> "David Johnston" wrote in message news:j14cbr$48a$1...@dont-email.me...
>> And yet [Superman II] was not in fact about them living
>> happily ever after.
>
> You concede my point *and* that you bastardized the "happily
> ever after" context. The fact they screwed it up in Superman II
> does not alter that the first movie went about top 5 all time,
> with a purely happy ending and a triumphant smile and flyby
> for the camera at the end there. They didn't have to screw it
> up in Superman II.
Yeah they did. If you have a real happy ending, then there's no more
story.
Jim G.
A happy ending doesn't have to be "happily ever after."
--
Jim G.
Waukesha, WI