So let's just get right
down to the nitty-gritty, shall we?
The
new (depending on when you're reading this) Captain Marvel movie starring Brie
Larson sucks, and I'm going to tell you why.
Sure
it's a flashy, semi-entertaining hour and a half, but thirty years from now
nobody is going to praise it for anything more than just another one of the
Marvel movies occupying one of the lowest rungs on the MCU's (Marvel Cinematic
Universe) long ladder of other, better movies.
And
why is that?
Because adversity builds character, stories are supposed to be about protagonist change earned through character growth,
and Captain Marvel has none of that.
A
writer's trick of the trade is to compare your protagonist at the beginning of
their story with themselves at the end of their story after they've endured all
the strife you, the sadistic writer that you are, have put them through, ergo adversity. If
they are the same person then you know your story is bunk and needs be changed
for the better because nothing you put them through made any meaningful impact
upon them.
Case
in point: take Captain Marvel's fight against Jude Law's character Yon-Rogg at the
beginning of the movie and compare it to their fight at the end of the movie
and you'll see they are almost identical thus showing zero protagonist change.
Now
contrast that with a far superior movie in Rocky. Take Rocky's fight against Spider Rico at the beginning of the movie and compare it to Rocky's fight
against Apollo Creed at the end of the movie. Two totally different fights. The
first one is an out-of-shape loser who barely survives while the latter Rocky,
as the changed contender he's become by persevering through adversity and
training, doesn't just survive the fight but almost beats the world champion.
Now that is protagonist change earned through character growth if I ever saw
it.
You
see, stories exist for one reason when you strip them down to their bare
essentials: the protagonist changing through character growth because of the
adversity they refuse to surrender to. Otherwise the story has no reason to
exist.
To
simplify: Act One is the protagonist pre-change with all their old flaws and
bad habits holding them back from achieving their true potential, Act Two is
the protagonist slowly changing through adversity by shedding their glaring
flaws and bad habits for shiny new virtues and good habits while they strive to
achieve their true potential, and Act Three is the protagonist post-change in
all their blazing true potential glory finally unlocked and unleashed.
But
what causes this character growth? Adversity! Or everything that happens to them between the beginning
and end of the story. If there's no change earned through character growth then
all of the events they endure between are rendered meaningless.
An
arrogant weapons dealer who turns over a new leaf after realizing firsthand
that his weapons that made him billions of dollars are killing innocent people?
You've got Iron Man. America
But
a powerful woman who is basically indestructible and ends up just as powerful
and indestructible as she began? You've got Captain Marvel and that's just
bleh.
The
reason why the writers of Captain Marvel deviated from the typical hero's
journey and made their movie boo-boo was because they feared the social media
backlash from the plague of Social Justice Whiner feminazis who pounce upon
every opportunity to scream false injustice if the writers dared show Carol Danvers
as a vulnerable woman learning to become a powerhouse after enduring through
adversity because currently we live in a day and age where if you even glance
at a woman wrong then you must hate and want to oppress every last one of them
with your evil penis.
And
therein lies their mistake, because all protagonists should be vulnerable in
some way or another otherwise we the audience can't relate to them since, after
all, we're only human. This is why so many people prefer Batman over Superman.
I
call it the "Superman Syndrome" because Superman is basically a
living god with so many powers if you split them up you could create an entire
team of superheroes. And because of this, watching Superman tear loose on the
bad guys is fun for all of about 15 minutes but after that you grow bored and
begin wondering what's really at stake for a living god.
But
Batman? He's just a guy in a suit. He's a brilliant detective and a billionaire
playboy, sure, but he's still just a guy in a suit. You can stab him and he
bleeds. You can shoot him and he dies. He feels pain and through him we feel
his pain because we can relate.
The
Hulk also suffers from the same "Superman Syndrome" though not so
much because of his weaker and vulnerable alter ego Bruce Banner. Sure it's fun watching the
big, green Hulk smash and pound his way through scores of enemies, but after
awhile you grow bored of the rampage because he's basically an unstoppable tank
of angry muscle.
Which
is why it's a good thing Marvel doesn't have the rights back to make another
Hulk movie because leaving the Hulk as a floater character who shows up in another
character's movie for 15 minutes then goes away is more interesting than two
straight hours of, "Hulk smash!" In The Avengers we get a small taste
of the Hulk at the beginning, but then he disappears for most of the movie only
to show up at the movie's end and smash his way through the evil alien menace
during the climactic final battle. And that's good stuff because the Hulk is given to
us in moderation.
Anywho
. . . back to the Captain Marvel suckage.
Protagonists
should change in one of two ways: either by eventually realizing the folly of
their old ways then turning over a new and better leaf (Iron Man), or by
holding on strong to their virtuous convictions as they deepen through
adversity and thus make of them a stronger person who in the end inspires others
to be better by example (Captain America).
As
I've pointed out, Captain Marvel has none of either because the writers were
too afraid of showing a woman as weak and feared being accused of hating all
women in general. And that's a crying shame because everyone loves a good story
about a weak underdog with a no-quit attitude who perseveres through adversity
while defying all the naysayers and eventually comes out on top all the stronger for it
(watch the movie Rudy, or Lucas, and tell me I'm wrong). Instead we got Brie
Larson's character Carol Danvers who is just as powerful at the end of the
movie as she is at the beginning, the only difference being that she recovers
her memories, and that's about as boring as watching paint dry. The only reason
Captain Marvel made as much money at the box office as it did is because
Disney/Marvel released it a month before Avengers: Endgame and people went in
droves to see it because they feared missing out on something it might contain
for Endgame. If you remove Captain Marvel from the MCU, change her name to, oh
I don't know, Captain Flatbutt, I'd be willing to bet my bottom dollar that it
would make about one-tenth of what Captain Marvel made.
So
the next time you plan out your next great protagonist, make sure they're a
Tony Stark who becomes an Iron Man or a Steve Rogers who becomes a Captain
America and not a Carol Danvers who becomes, well, the same Carol Danvers she's
always been. Because if you prick your protagonist and they don't bleed then we
don't care.