Saturday, April 6, 2019

Prick Your Protagonist . . . or Why Captain Marvel Doesn't Bleed


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. A meek and weak soldier boy who becomes a strong and bold leader of men standing against tyranny and injustice? You've got Captain 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.


One Measly Hour Per Week . . . or the Easiest way to become an Author!

So you wanna be an author. Great! But you don't have the time to become an author. Single sad Indian tear rolling down upon they ...