Captain Marvel (2019)

There was a time when comic books were not only geeky, but a total "guy thing." Whenever I hear conversations about superheroes, it would be two guys arguing about whether Batman can take down Superman. I will admit my love of comics did come from watching comic-book film adaptations, but once I realized there weren't enough superheroes being represented on the big screen, particularly super heroines, I decided to do a little research of my own. It turns out that all the superhero films I grew up watching were directed by men, and the comic book nerds were mostly young boys and older men. Of course, there are young girls and women who are into comics, but it would make sense for them to feel overshadowed by the overbearing masculinity in the comic book industry, and by Marvel Studios. But, all that has changed. As many of us know, Marvel Studios has taken an interest in women-led superhero films, but some of us are oblivious to the women behind the camera and the pen. In this article, we'll be discussing women in Marvel, including women directors of Marvel films, women show runners, and writers of Marvel series. [Texts bolded in red are links to Marvel.com]

Before Captain Marvel was adapted in to a film, I remember seeing a comic book of a superhero with blonde, short hair, labeled Captain Marvel, and my first thought was, she must be the most powerful superhero if she's named after Marvel Comics. The point is I didn’t know much about her, and sometimes, when I see a superhero onscreen that I’m not familiar with, my expectations aren’t that high. But, there was no disappointment in watching Captain Marvel. My only disappointment is that not enough people are talking about this Superhero film. Not like the recent Marvel superhero films. This film has been directed by the filmmaking duo Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck. This means, technically, Captain Marvel is the first Marvel superhero film to be directed by a woman.

That quote by Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) in her first scene in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness is the center of my argument against the MCU’s latest feature film. Directed by Sam Raimi, it follows Maximoff’s efforts to return to the life we saw her living in the second half of WandaVision with her kids and her conflict with Dr. Strange (Benedict Cumberbatch) for said efforts. So it's essentially a film about how Wanda process grief. And yet, the film is set in Dr. Strange's universe, with him in the pivotal role. Yet, his role is pivotal only in the sense of somewhat being the protagonist and having his name in the film. The central character who goes through the most changes and puts things into motion is Wanda. So the name of the film itself is an example of how the woman's story is for some reason being told from another man's perspective. It’s like saying Wanda does warrant a series on Disney+ but as far as theatrical releases go, even if it’s about her and Dr. Strange just happens to be there, he deserves to serve as the agency for her development and deserves to be the protagonist of her story. I’m terribly disappointed in MCU for the direction of the narrative in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

For anyone yet to see the film, what follows contains MAJOR SPOILERS for both WandaVision and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

To start off, Wanda’s first contact with any of her co-Avengers since Avengers: Endgame is with Dr. Strange now, after the whole affair at Westview. And that too just because Dr. Strange needs her help. And he does the most man thing to do - reminds her that her children weren't real and she should stop her crusade to replace a Wanda from another universe so she can spend time with that Wanda's children. Now, Wanda’s jibe at Strange, which is quoted at the beginning of the article can be interpreted as a critique of the way toxic masculinity always turns the narrative on its head when a woman is involved. However, there is no question about morality presented. It’s through Wanda that we’re given an in-depth look at how a mother grieves the loss of her children, but its expression isn’t seen as grey. It’s clear that her modus operandi of dealing with losing her children must be condemned. Her actions could have apocalyptic consequences and we shouldn’t be seeing her as a grieving mother but as a possessed villainess or Witch to play along with her alter-ego name. So while the quote from Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness with which I started the article acknowledges the double standards set by the patriarchy, the film itself has double standards.

Why I say it has double standards is because Dr. Strange wasn’t seen as the villain and neither was Spider-man in Spider-man: No Way Home. While your best friends not getting into their dream college for no fault of theirs is heartbreaking for a career-focused student, using forbidden sorcery to deal with that is treated as a desperate measure but not a villainous act. After the spell is messed up and multiversal consequences happen, it’s seen as an unfortunate fallout of an honest but misdirected attempt but Peter is clearly not treated as an antagonist. And yet, Wanda’s use of forbidden magic to deal with the loss of her children is not to be condoned. The opening quote of this article is essentially self-explanatory but I want to argue that this obvious lack of consideration for Wanda insinuates it’s not just her co-Avengers, but her writers who aren’t really concerned about her and dehumanize her for having magical powers. She’s supposed to be in control as an adult with powers that can have catastrophic effects, even in a period of extreme emotional turmoil for her, and especially without any genuine support, which I might add Peter Parker had a lot of. She clearly needs a rest from the world but no one's offering her an alternative to the desperate efforts she's making to deal with her grief while blaming her for not being dysfunctional.

In fact, this isn’t just a sexist matter. Stress leaves are a real thing. And for good reason. Expecting and demanding full functionality during a time when someone is emotionally or physically compromised is a consequence of Capitalism. There are also mental health resources available to anyone who feels unable to function at their usual level on a daily basis. And despite featuring a therapy arc on The Falcon and the Winter Soldier, MCU decided not to give Wanda an arc about that. It’s like everything learned during sensitivity training shouldn’t apply to one of the few meaningful female characters in the universe. She is extremely traumatized, with each new traumatizing event piling on the other with barely any time between them, which is universal to almost every MCU character at this point. It feels regressive that Wanda isn't given any means to properly heal from her trauma and develop as a character. What’s worse, as if to give her a feminist narrative, her hunt is just for her kids and no longer for Vision even if keeping Vision alive had been the reason behind everything that happened in WandaVision, since that would apparently imply that Wanda doesn’t need a man in her life to make her feel fulfilled.

My original debut piece entailed dusting off a dying trope, so no one was more surprised than me when the popular YouTube channel “The Take” beat me to the punch. As a lifelong roleplayer who’s experienced plenty of cross-over with fanfic writers and lovers, I figured that the “Mary Sue” was an archaic archetype: a silly milestone.

You see, somewhere down the line, “Mary Sue,” often a cringe-worthy chapter in the creative history of young writers, made an epic trek from the campy corners of fanfic to an interview with a chart-topping celebrity in 2016. This was certainly a shocking and sensational trajectory, but why, in 2021, is a major presence still examining a matter that's over five years old? A quick browse of YouTube’s filtered results as of this writing would suggest that the “Mary Sue” is not a hot new trend in the cinema circuit, nor has it been applied recently to any character other than Rey.

On September 23rd, when I set out to layer a critique of the Mary Sue on top of the surge in female superheroes in the MCU, I pitched an idea to my team through the lens of a roleplayer. I asked: “What informs anti-Mary Sue sentiment, and will female superheroes face a similar critiquing process? If so, will lovable flaws somehow protect them?” Perhaps there was something to that, because, lo and behold, The Take claimed, a week later, that one can create the “non-Mary Sue” by plugging in flaws. But is it really that easy? And should we be bashing Mary Sues in the first place? I invite you to follow me down the rabbit hole of YouTube comment threads, Discord channels, fanfic nostalgia, and a man that really just wants his pig back.

There are so many interwoven stories, themes, character arcs, timelines, and dimensions! In order to keep track of the MCU films and figure out what to watch when, here’s a list of those that have come out – 29 as of now — as well as what's coming up in the next few years. Included are related articles and Incluvie score (and a fun 1.5 minute TikTok).

First is the release order of the MCU films. This is the way Marvel intended the audience to take in the characters and story arcs. After the release list is Incluvie’s own note and style on how to watch!

1. Iron Man (2008)

2. The Incredible Hulk (2008)

The concept behind Thunder Force sounds exactly like what the superhero genre has lacked: diversity. On a deep level, this genre lacks female superheroes that are not sidekicks. When I say diversity, however, I also mean normal people—not Scarlett Johansson, Chris Evans, or Henry Cavill. Even with more heroines receiving their own solo installments such as Wonder Woman (2017), Captain Marvel (2019), and this year's Black Widow (2021), a superhero film with two women front and center (Melissa McCarthy and Octavia Spencer) that do not fit the standard Hollywood mold sounds refreshing. When a friend informed me of not only the premise but that it was streaming on Netflix, I eagerly launched the streaming app.

Like a giddy schoolgirl, I felt as if I was opening a gift of change. Admittedly, the opening drew me in: two social outcasts who meet on the playground, establishing the foundation of not only their connection but who they would become in the world. That world is one filled not with superheroes—but villains. The catch? The villains and superheroes are one and the same. Labeled as "miscreants," the superheroes are destructive in nature, resulting in the murder of Octavia Spencer's parents when she was a child.

Even while writing this description, it sounds unlike a movie with a Hollywood budget. There was hope that this film would represent social outcasts and anyone who has never felt represented on screen.

This female-led comedy attempted to harness both the comedic prowess of Melissa McCarthy and the stunning intensity of Octavia Spencer to drive a plot that failed to reveal itself by the end of the film. The casting of Octavia Spencer alone had convinced me if the plot fell short, her performance could at least carry the film. This was a short-lived conclusion.

The opening scene that initially drew me in became predictable and trite, but I still wanted to give the set-up credit—this was a time to establish the bond between the two main characters. Following the conclusion of the opening scene, I couldn't help but think the set-up was all wrong. The first major event that took place on the playground was the junior version of Lydia (Melissa McCarthy) saving Emily (Octavia Spencer) from a bully. Que the white savior. This established an imbalanced power structure for the character development going forward. Emily should have saved Lydia in this scene.; which would not only send the progressive message but be a proper inciting incident for the rest of the film. In actuality, Lydia should have been the sidekick, as the film struggled to support itself with her as the lead.