Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 20:36:01 GMT
I understand. I just disagree. Nothing's supposed to go through your mind as you follow orders. Save it for the bar if you have to. Or you leave the job, which is just as valid a form of adaptation as any other, but there's no brownie points for disobeying a manager because you think they don't know what they're doing. You might have a bad manager who doesn't inspire confidence, but if you don't do what they tell you, you're almost certainly a bad employee.
Sara Connor was definitely bitchy, in my opinion. If we don't agree then we don't agree, but she was bitchy to me the whole way through and I loved her for it.
The 'can you imagine people doing it better' is too big a can of worms. I wish it weren't opened. I don't know what media you consume or who you look to for society's feedback but I try and avoid that stuff like the plague, and even I couldn't escape the shit storm that was Brie Larson dragged through the mud before the movie came out.
Nothing goes through your mind as you follow orders? Ok... we definitely disagree here. Whether you obey or not, it doesn't mean you're just mindless zombies incapable of forming thoughts. And the idea that employees aren't allowed to question their manager's decisions sounds like a recipe for disaster. A company grows when people are allowed to vet other's decisions. Obviously you can't always disobey whenever you want to, but procedures and processes are enhanced and perfected by multiple stress tests... which is often accomplished by people simply questioning your procedures. We get our procedures questioned by their effectiveness. Failure falls upward in the kitchen so even if I have a bad night, you can bet your boots the owner will take it out on the chef, who may later take it out on me. But the owner's question is going to be why aren't they following your instructions? You can throw them under the bus all you like but ultimately, if you have an employee who's not listening, you can only keep them on for so long before it's your fault they're still here.
No I don't mean literally nothing goes through your head like a wind tunnel when you follow orders. Just pure black silence in the brain. I'm saying you follow instructions because that's what it means to be part of the team. You don't know what your manager knows. If they tell you to prepare 20 lobsters, all the time you spend wondering why you were asked is time you could be spending on being focused at the task at hand. And if you don't take it seriously or figure you have more important things to do, by the time those 20 lobsters are needed and they're not ready, it's absolutely your ass.
If you believe anything I say, make it this: there's a reason people say if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. The heat doesn't always come from just the cooking. Of course employees question their managers. You just do it privately or off to the side, like in the office.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 14, 2019 20:54:45 GMT
Nothing goes through your mind as you follow orders? Ok... we definitely disagree here. Whether you obey or not, it doesn't mean you're just mindless zombies incapable of forming thoughts. And the idea that employees aren't allowed to question their manager's decisions sounds like a recipe for disaster. A company grows when people are allowed to vet other's decisions. Obviously you can't always disobey whenever you want to, but procedures and processes are enhanced and perfected by multiple stress tests... which is often accomplished by people simply questioning your procedures. We get our procedures questioned by their effectiveness. Failure falls upward in the kitchen so even if I have a bad night, you can bet your boots the owner will take it out on the chef, who may later take it out on me. But the owner's question is going to be why aren't they following your instructions? You can throw them under the bus all you like but ultimately, if you have an employee who's not listening, you can only keep them on for so long before it's your fault they're still here.
No I don't mean literally nothing goes through your head like a wind tunnel when you follow orders. Just pure black silence in the brain. I'm saying you follow instructions because that's what it means to be part of the team. You don't know what your manager knows. If they tell you to prepare 20 lobsters, all the time you spend wondering why you were asked is time you could be spending on being focused at the task at hand. And if you don't take it seriously or figure you have more important things to do, by the time those 20 lobsters are needed and they're not ready, it's absolutely your ass.
If you believe anything I say, make it this: there's a reason people say if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. The heat doesn't always come from just the cooking. Of course employees question their managers. You just do it privately or off to the side, like in the office.
Problem here I think is that you're talking specifically from a kitchen perspective. I'm talking from a corporate environment perspective. Very few companies in the corporate world expect their employees to blindly follow manager's orders, not in 1st world countries anyway. It might work at the very low levels, like for a group of factory workers wordlessly following their supervisor's orders, but it won't work at higher levels, say supervisors blindly following the manager's orders or managers blindly following the director's orders. In the end, we're getting far off from the original topic. Let me ask you this then: are you telling me you don't agree that some people are just naturally better at giving orders than others? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 21:30:12 GMT
We get our procedures questioned by their effectiveness. Failure falls upward in the kitchen so even if I have a bad night, you can bet your boots the owner will take it out on the chef, who may later take it out on me. But the owner's question is going to be why aren't they following your instructions? You can throw them under the bus all you like but ultimately, if you have an employee who's not listening, you can only keep them on for so long before it's your fault they're still here.
No I don't mean literally nothing goes through your head like a wind tunnel when you follow orders. Just pure black silence in the brain. I'm saying you follow instructions because that's what it means to be part of the team. You don't know what your manager knows. If they tell you to prepare 20 lobsters, all the time you spend wondering why you were asked is time you could be spending on being focused at the task at hand. And if you don't take it seriously or figure you have more important things to do, by the time those 20 lobsters are needed and they're not ready, it's absolutely your ass.
If you believe anything I say, make it this: there's a reason people say if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. The heat doesn't always come from just the cooking. Of course employees question their managers. You just do it privately or off to the side, like in the office.
Problem here I think is that you're talking specifically from a kitchen perspective. I'm talking from a corporate environment perspective. Very few companies in the corporate world expect their employees to blindly follow manager's orders, not in 1st world countries anyway. It might work at the very low levels, like for a group of factory workers wordlessly following their supervisor's orders, but it won't work at higher levels, say supervisors blindly following the manager's orders or managers blindly following the director's orders. In the end, we're getting far off from the original topic. Let me ask you this then: are you telling me you don't agree that some people are just naturally better at giving orders than others? Oh yeah. Half the people who leave kitchens and go to another one do it because they think they can do better.
That sentence took me 10 minutes to write because there's so many tangents when it comes to the food industry. I used to be a corporate trainer for a franchise too; I'd rather go to the gulag than go back.
Some people are terrible at giving orders, but to question their judgment is to question the judgment of the person who put them there. I think we got to this point because I said Captain Marvel is the kind of person I'm used to taking orders from. My kind of asshole. Consider the scene where War Machine asks where she's been and she responds with there's a lot of planets out there and most of them don't have you guys. She's not wrong. War Machine is still a military man and he knows she's right, tempted though he may be to give her the finger. Some people don't have the gift of the charisma in giving orders, BUT if they're the right orders it shouldn't make a difference.
I've worked with just as many people who were good at giving orders (polite, civil) but when they got stressed they had further to fall. Leaders lead by more than just tone of voice, and yeah Captain Marvel's bedside manner could use some work but what is please and thank you compared to half of all life in the universe?
You know, it reminds me a little of the Wolf, Harvey Keitel in Pulp Fiction. If I'm curt with you, it's because time is a factor... So pretty please, with sugar on top, clean the f------ car.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 23:09:34 GMT
We get our procedures questioned by their effectiveness. Failure falls upward in the kitchen so even if I have a bad night, you can bet your boots the owner will take it out on the chef, who may later take it out on me. But the owner's question is going to be why aren't they following your instructions? You can throw them under the bus all you like but ultimately, if you have an employee who's not listening, you can only keep them on for so long before it's your fault they're still here.
No I don't mean literally nothing goes through your head like a wind tunnel when you follow orders. Just pure black silence in the brain. I'm saying you follow instructions because that's what it means to be part of the team. You don't know what your manager knows. If they tell you to prepare 20 lobsters, all the time you spend wondering why you were asked is time you could be spending on being focused at the task at hand. And if you don't take it seriously or figure you have more important things to do, by the time those 20 lobsters are needed and they're not ready, it's absolutely your ass.
If you believe anything I say, make it this: there's a reason people say if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. The heat doesn't always come from just the cooking. Of course employees question their managers. You just do it privately or off to the side, like in the office.
Problem here I think is that you're talking specifically from a kitchen perspective. I'm talking from a corporate environment perspective. Very few companies in the corporate world expect their employees to blindly follow manager's orders, not in 1st world countries anyway. It might work at the very low levels, like for a group of factory workers wordlessly following their supervisor's orders, but it won't work at higher levels, say supervisors blindly following the manager's orders or managers blindly following the director's orders. In the end, we're getting far off from the original topic. Let me ask you this then: are you telling me you don't agree that some people are just naturally better at giving orders than others? Not to beat a dead horse but I want to address this:
"Problem here I think is that you're talking specifically from a kitchen perspective"
What's the correct perspective to talk from? My workplace has no more or less a valid effect on what I enjoy than yours does for you. It's my experience with that kind of discipline that perhaps I relate to her in a way that you don't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grabthar's Hammer on Jun 14, 2019 23:43:29 GMT
I was hoping for Yvonne Srahovski or Natalie Dormer, but I enjoyed Larson's work in the past and thought she did a great job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 0:42:15 GMT
I just watched Captain Marvel for the first time tonight. I rented it because I had zero interest in paying money to theaters because the trailers looked bad. This all said, this movie suffers from 2 of the worst things a movie can be imo boring and forgettable. I don't give a shit about Carol. She's just....dull. She's boring. I have this issue with the MCU main female characters. What is it about the MCU's main cast of women that seem to be devoid of charisma/personality? Widow/Witch/Marvel they're all just bland. I think that's why Valkyrie is so awesome. She has all that. Brie Larson did zero for me. She's just boring. Can the sequel just give us Rogue where she takes all her powers and we no longer see Carol again? That wouldn't upset me at all. I made an observation before where I mentioned majority of the MCU's main female characters are pretty much just duplicates of each other. Black Widow, Gamora, Wasp, Captain Marvel, Sif, Peggy Carter, Melinda May, Colleen Wing, Misty Knight, even Valkyrie and Nebula to an extent... they're all just slight variations of the sassy, tough chick w/ a good heart under a badass exterior character. There are a few who break away from that mold (Hela and Mantis for example) but they're few and far in between and they're either side characters or one-off characters. To date, I still think Wanda has been the best developed female MCU character and I think they should have made her their primary female character rather than Captain Marvel. It's great that she's getting her own show but she really should have gotten her own movie. They really are just duplicates of one another. So many of them are just supposed to be these bad asses but devoid of any personality to them. Yet the male characters like Tony or Thor can be bad asses yet at the same time have personality and charisma to them. I never gave a shit about either of those characters in the comics but Hemsworth and RDJ are just so good that you can't help but root for them in the films. With the female characters outside of Valkyrie who damn near stole the show in her scenes in Ragnarok and that's credit to the development arc of her character and Tessa Thompson's natural charisma to her. The rest, I just don't give a shit about. Am I supposed to care about the Wanda and Vision relationship? Because I don't. They just seemed to be rushed into a relationship without any development to it imo so when we had the Vision/Wanda scene at the end of Infinity War it really felt hollow to me. I care about Gamora but that's not because of anything she's done as a character. That's just me being a fan of Zoe Saldana. It feels like these writers aren't able to create the female characters to be different from one another like they can the male's and I think that sucks. Saying this now makes me question how they'll handle the female X-Men characters. I will say as I forgot to mention, the sister in Black Panther (her name escapes me atm) was awesome because she had some charisma and a personality to her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 15, 2019 1:08:16 GMT
Problem here I think is that you're talking specifically from a kitchen perspective. I'm talking from a corporate environment perspective. Very few companies in the corporate world expect their employees to blindly follow manager's orders, not in 1st world countries anyway. It might work at the very low levels, like for a group of factory workers wordlessly following their supervisor's orders, but it won't work at higher levels, say supervisors blindly following the manager's orders or managers blindly following the director's orders. In the end, we're getting far off from the original topic. Let me ask you this then: are you telling me you don't agree that some people are just naturally better at giving orders than others? Not to beat a dead horse but I want to address this:
"Problem here I think is that you're talking specifically from a kitchen perspective"
What's the correct perspective to talk from? My workplace has no more or less a valid effect on what I enjoy than yours does for you. It's my experience with that kind of discipline that perhaps I relate to her in a way that you don't.
Because the working dynamic of the Avengers team seem closer to the structure of a corporate company than a kitchen? Because the movie industry in general is structured more closely to a corporate environment than a kitchen environment? Because Carol Danvers was never portrayed to have authority over a group of people the same way a chef has authority over their kitchen staff? Because a corporate environment has a far bigger and wider variety of positions and inter-work relationships than a kitchen (in fact, some corporate environments include kitchen staff). Because in the end, none of this matters since I specifically used my managers as an example only to explain my thoughts, not to insist that Carol Danvers is exactly like my managers. I certainly did not intend to make this seem like a "my experience is better than yours" argument. |
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jun 15, 2019 1:21:28 GMT
We get our procedures questioned by their effectiveness. Failure falls upward in the kitchen so even if I have a bad night, you can bet your boots the owner will take it out on the chef, who may later take it out on me. But the owner's question is going to be why aren't they following your instructions? You can throw them under the bus all you like but ultimately, if you have an employee who's not listening, you can only keep them on for so long before it's your fault they're still here.
No I don't mean literally nothing goes through your head like a wind tunnel when you follow orders. Just pure black silence in the brain. I'm saying you follow instructions because that's what it means to be part of the team. You don't know what your manager knows. If they tell you to prepare 20 lobsters, all the time you spend wondering why you were asked is time you could be spending on being focused at the task at hand. And if you don't take it seriously or figure you have more important things to do, by the time those 20 lobsters are needed and they're not ready, it's absolutely your ass.
If you believe anything I say, make it this: there's a reason people say if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. The heat doesn't always come from just the cooking. Of course employees question their managers. You just do it privately or off to the side, like in the office.
Problem here I think is that you're talking specifically from a kitchen perspective. I'm talking from a corporate environment perspective. Very few companies in the corporate world expect their employees to blindly follow manager's orders, not in 1st world countries anyway. It might work at the very low levels, like for a group of factory workers wordlessly following their supervisor's orders, but it won't work at higher levels, say supervisors blindly following the manager's orders or managers blindly following the director's orders. In the end, we're getting far off from the original topic. Let me ask you this then: are you telling me you don't agree that some people are just naturally better at giving orders than others? Most of my employers want orders followed. Insubordination can get you fired. Vers was in a military setting so orders were to be followed. Same when she was in the US military. You don't check into the Holiday Inn expecting the maids to get creative. The restaurant is expected to provide something that somewhat resembles the menu description. Shopping at Target you hope for polite employees to help you. I take my cat to the vet, shouldn't they do all the required checks? Do you want the programmer to get creative & send you off on useless side quests?
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 15, 2019 2:41:11 GMT
Problem here I think is that you're talking specifically from a kitchen perspective. I'm talking from a corporate environment perspective. Very few companies in the corporate world expect their employees to blindly follow manager's orders, not in 1st world countries anyway. It might work at the very low levels, like for a group of factory workers wordlessly following their supervisor's orders, but it won't work at higher levels, say supervisors blindly following the manager's orders or managers blindly following the director's orders. In the end, we're getting far off from the original topic. Let me ask you this then: are you telling me you don't agree that some people are just naturally better at giving orders than others? Most of my employers want orders followed. Insubordination can get you fired. Vers was in a military setting so orders were to be followed. Same when she was in the US military. You don't check into the Holiday Inn expecting the maids to get creative. The restaurant is expected to provide something that somewhat resembles the menu description. Shopping at Target you hope for polite employees to help you. I take my cat to the vet, shouldn't they do all the required checks? Do you want the programmer to get creative & send you off on useless side quests? You're taking my words out of context. I never said, or even mentioned, insubordination or complete disobedience. Merely stated that blind obedience was not a healthy attitude in most companies. If you're manager is harassing you, do you simply comply? If your manager wants to make a decision that can ruin the company, won't you try to dissuade them? In any case, following orders has got nothing to do with Vers. That wasn't the context of the conversation. After all, Vers had no underlings that she was supposed to order around. |
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Jun 15, 2019 5:08:16 GMT
The problem with the movie is that she does not have a character arc to really speak of, she does not actually grow anywhere between the beginning and the end of the story and when big reveals occur she is more or less the same in personality, power level, and is capable of doing, well, pretty much anything without much struggle. I am sorry but there is no way a person can seriously say with a straight face that Captain Marvel is as well developed or as strong(in characterization terms mind you) an on-screen action heroine like your Ellen Ripley(Alien), Sarah Connor(Terminator), Leia Organa(Star Wars), Yu Shu Lien(Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon), The Bride(Kill Bill), Trinity(The Matrix), Wonder Woman, Rita Vrataski(Edge of Tomorrow), Ilsa Faust(Mission: Impossible), Alita(Alita: Battle Angel), River Tam(Serenity/Firefly), Zoë Washburne(Also Serenity/Firefly), Jessica Yang(Super Cop), Furiosa(Mad Max), Hanna, Nikita / Marie Clément(La Femme Nikita), and even Selene(Underworld), Neytiri(Avatar), Leeloo(The Fifth Element), Yuki Kashima (Shurayuki-hime)(Lady Snowblood), Evelyn(The Mummy), and as far as the MCU goes Black Widow, Gamora, Pepper, Nebula, Scarlet Witch, Peggy Carter, Sif, Wasp, and Valkyrie. The best comparison I can come up with for your Carol Danvers as the MCU portrays her as is Alice from those Resident Evil movies. Your Robocop comparison only goes so far because Murphy actually had a more fleshed out arc that had good pay off in the end. It isn't really on Larson that the character's journey feels so flat but moreso on the screenwriters and directors and the choice of source material(Kelly Sue DeConnick ruined Carol Danvers and turned her into a cold, unlikeable, Mary Sue who is now a borderline villain in the comics since then). Superman also makes sense as a comparative character. There's not a whole lot to do but give her the action and watch the rest of the world react to them. Not a bad comparison, but even so Superman in his two origin movies(78 and Man of Steel) had more semblance of an arc than Danvers in her own movie I'd say.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jun 15, 2019 7:40:00 GMT
I haven't seen enough of Brie Larsons work to know but is the lack of nuance in her performance a regular thing of was that just for this movie? I ask because honestly the issue I have is when she's supposed to be reserved but we are meant to be reading more into her performance in those reserved moments instead feels empty, there is no imo subtleness to those scenes, she just goes blank.
I don't know if it was Brie's fault or the director but I just felt like a lot of the delivery of certain scenes or moments just were done iffy, and lazily in some regards.
I think this maybe less to do with Brie and more to do with who she was working with though tbh, as this movie as a whole is kind of bleh though it does have some good bits to it, glad I didn't hate it though like I feared I could have just wish I would have loved it like I was hoping I was going to before the reviews started coming out.
|
|
|
|
Post by merh on Jun 15, 2019 8:37:54 GMT
Most of my employers want orders followed. Insubordination can get you fired. Vers was in a military setting so orders were to be followed. Same when she was in the US military. You don't check into the Holiday Inn expecting the maids to get creative. The restaurant is expected to provide something that somewhat resembles the menu description. Shopping at Target you hope for polite employees to help you. I take my cat to the vet, shouldn't they do all the required checks? Do you want the programmer to get creative & send you off on useless side quests? You're taking my words out of context. I never said, or even mentioned, insubordination or complete disobedience. Merely stated that blind obedience was not a healthy attitude in most companies. If you're manager is harassing you, do you simply comply? If your manager wants to make a decision that can ruin the company, won't you try to dissuade them? In any case, following orders has got nothing to do with Vers. That wasn't the context of the conversation. After all, Vers had no underlings that she was supposed to order around. Yet we see news reports of people who get harassed. #metoo? There was a thing recently...Buffalo Wild Wings where a guy was harassed & finally sued? I had a nasty supervisor once.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 15, 2019 9:26:06 GMT
You're taking my words out of context. I never said, or even mentioned, insubordination or complete disobedience. Merely stated that blind obedience was not a healthy attitude in most companies. If you're manager is harassing you, do you simply comply? If your manager wants to make a decision that can ruin the company, won't you try to dissuade them? In any case, following orders has got nothing to do with Vers. That wasn't the context of the conversation. After all, Vers had no underlings that she was supposed to order around. Yet we see news reports of people who get harassed. #metoo? There was a thing recently...Buffalo Wild Wings where a guy was harassed & finally sued? I had a nasty supervisor once. Yes, my point exactly. You see your manager doing something you believe is wrong (i.e. harrassment), do you simply "obey" with what your manager wants or do you do something about it? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 9:33:42 GMT
Not to beat a dead horse but I want to address this:
"Problem here I think is that you're talking specifically from a kitchen perspective"
What's the correct perspective to talk from? My workplace has no more or less a valid effect on what I enjoy than yours does for you. It's my experience with that kind of discipline that perhaps I relate to her in a way that you don't.
Because the working dynamic of the Avengers team seem closer to the structure of a corporate company than a kitchen? Because the movie industry in general is structured more closely to a corporate environment than a kitchen environment? Because Carol Danvers was never portrayed to have authority over a group of people the same way a chef has authority over their kitchen staff? Because a corporate environment has a far bigger and wider variety of positions and inter-work relationships than a kitchen (in fact, some corporate environments include kitchen staff). Because in the end, none of this matters since I specifically used my managers as an example only to explain my thoughts, not to insist that Carol Danvers is exactly like my managers. I certainly did not intend to make this seem like a "my experience is better than yours" argument. Your point wasn't that Carol is like manager A? When manager A gives you an order, it's like they're trying too hard. When manager B gives an order, you follow it immediately.
There's something about manager A you don't like, so when they give you orders, you get irritated with them, even though there's nothing wrong with their decisions. That's who you're saying Captain Marvel is, right? Someone you don't like and want to scoff at, even when you know they're right? When the proverbial loyalty-inspiring manager B tells you to drop what you're doing, you do it because it must be important, but when it's someone like Brie Larson's Captain Marvel telling you the same thing, your instinct is to tell them to shut the f--- up?
Just because somebody is a manager A type to you doesn't mean they're a manager A type to me. It has nothing to do with anyone's experience being better. You may roll your eyes and think here we go again when she speaks (is my impression), but I'm the person in the same room leaning in to listen. Being a member of any team, be it in a kitchen or the Avengers, is a job. It helps to like each other, but respect is a must. That's my wisdom; if manager A is so bad, there's the door. Good employees leave bad managers every day. But if they're not the worst, then you give your respect to manager A and manager B all the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Jun 15, 2019 10:24:29 GMT
I'll say this for Larson as Captain Marvel; when I saw you write that she looks less confident and tough and more bitchy and trying hard, my first thought was what's the difference?
Personally I think the difference is how it comes across to people, using a variation on Skaathar's manager type's idea, Type A to me are those who don't feel natural in that position, they don't deserve the position and just lucked into it and so you don't respect them in that position, Type B do feel natural in that position, they have earned that position through their own merit, so when they speak as a manager you are more inclined to go with what they want because they have your respect.
Within the MCU you could compare Carol Danvers with Steve Rogers, two superhumans gifted with their power in one way shape or form due to a defecting enemy scientist's experiments, a sort of difference is Steve was chosen to receive his power by being the best human being the doctor could find, he wanted to serve not because he wanted to fight but because he felt it was wrong for him to not be sacrificing whilst everyone else around him was, Carol on the other hand actually forces herself into that position, Mar-Vell doesn't want her with her that morning, Carol just insists she go, Mar-Vell didn't intend to give Carol her powers she just happened to get them, Steve after getting his powers only refuses orders to save the lives of captured soldiers when no other help was on the way, Carol disobeys orders when she knows help is on the way because she wants to know the truth about what happened to her, Cap then fights against an enemy that is his equal, he doesn't have an unfair advantage he's not superior to Skull physically in any way, he's also not impervious to anything, he's tougher than normal but he's still human, Carol is turbo OP, she's stronger than everyone else combined, she's impervious to damage, she can crash land on earth from space without a ship and walk away without a scratch and that's before she gets her super turbo boosters either.
Steve is Cap because he proved himself the best for the position, he earned it, Carol is Marvel because she just happened to be there, and they do a poor job of showing us why her just being there should be enough, if they spent more time showing us Carol earning he place in the air force, like honesty what they showed us makes it seem less believable imo, whats the one thing we see? her on the ropes, and even then she's not crushing it, which surely should be the point right? 80's USAF wouldn't a women need to be head and shoulders above everyone else just to be seen as an equal?
Carol in the movie appears as more an A type, which in itself isn't an issue really, that's a cool story to tell, the story being here is this A type who turns into the B type, and she does this by not being who she was before the mind fuck or who she was because of it but by merging who she was with who she is to become who she is meant to be, but the movie instead just tells us she's a B type.
Just my two pence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 11:14:29 GMT
She was great!
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 15, 2019 13:21:03 GMT
Because the working dynamic of the Avengers team seem closer to the structure of a corporate company than a kitchen? Because the movie industry in general is structured more closely to a corporate environment than a kitchen environment? Because Carol Danvers was never portrayed to have authority over a group of people the same way a chef has authority over their kitchen staff? Because a corporate environment has a far bigger and wider variety of positions and inter-work relationships than a kitchen (in fact, some corporate environments include kitchen staff). Because in the end, none of this matters since I specifically used my managers as an example only to explain my thoughts, not to insist that Carol Danvers is exactly like my managers. I certainly did not intend to make this seem like a "my experience is better than yours" argument. Your point wasn't that Carol is like manager A? When manager A gives you an order, it's like they're trying too hard. When manager B gives an order, you follow it immediately.
There's something about manager A you don't like, so when they give you orders, you get irritated with them, even though there's nothing wrong with their decisions. That's who you're saying Captain Marvel is, right? Someone you don't like and want to scoff at, even when you know they're right? When the proverbial loyalty-inspiring manager B tells you to drop what you're doing, you do it because it must be important, but when it's someone like Brie Larson's Captain Marvel telling you the same thing, your instinct is to tell them to shut the f--- up?
Just because somebody is a manager A type to you doesn't mean they're a manager A type to me. It has nothing to do with anyone's experience being better. You may roll your eyes and think here we go again when she speaks (is my impression), but I'm the person in the same room leaning in to listen. Being a member of any team, be it in a kitchen or the Avengers, is a job. It helps to like each other, but respect is a must. That's my wisdom; if manager A is so bad, there's the door. Good employees leave bad managers every day. But if they're not the worst, then you give your respect to manager A and manager B all the same.
Unfortunately, in the real world personality does matter, and it's way more complicated than simply thinking blind obedience to managers is guaranteed regardless of whom that manager is. You might not have a problem blindly following any manager, but can you honestly say the same for every other person? If you think that a manager's behavior, performance, background and way of handling themselves in no way impacts how their staff react to them well, then we'll never agree on this topic. Because I think that's a very unrealistic way of looking at the world. Human beings are way more complicated than that. Being able to lead people is a skill, and not all people are equally adept at it. Simply being given the title of leader doesn't automatically gift you with perfect leadership skills. And remember that these actors' real lives are often times nothing like the roles their play, so they wouldn't have earned the confidence to play these roles by way of real life experience and expertise in the role (Brie for example has never been a fighter pilot). It's fully dependent on their acting skill whether they can believably sell themselves in the role or not. If they can't, then they feel shallow in that role, it feels off. Because the script is trying to portray them in a way that they can't believably portray. Like a manager who got the job but who hasn't earned it and isn't comfortable in the role. So criticizing an actor for not being able to strongly sell a role is an absolutely valid criticism. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 17:50:42 GMT
Your point wasn't that Carol is like manager A? When manager A gives you an order, it's like they're trying too hard. When manager B gives an order, you follow it immediately.
There's something about manager A you don't like, so when they give you orders, you get irritated with them, even though there's nothing wrong with their decisions. That's who you're saying Captain Marvel is, right? Someone you don't like and want to scoff at, even when you know they're right? When the proverbial loyalty-inspiring manager B tells you to drop what you're doing, you do it because it must be important, but when it's someone like Brie Larson's Captain Marvel telling you the same thing, your instinct is to tell them to shut the f--- up?
Just because somebody is a manager A type to you doesn't mean they're a manager A type to me. It has nothing to do with anyone's experience being better. You may roll your eyes and think here we go again when she speaks (is my impression), but I'm the person in the same room leaning in to listen. Being a member of any team, be it in a kitchen or the Avengers, is a job. It helps to like each other, but respect is a must. That's my wisdom; if manager A is so bad, there's the door. Good employees leave bad managers every day. But if they're not the worst, then you give your respect to manager A and manager B all the same.
If you think that a manager's behavior, performance, background and way of handling themselves in no way impacts how their staff react to them well, then we'll never agree on this topic. Because I think that's a very unrealistic way of looking at the world. Human beings are way more complicated than that. Of course I don't think that. Unrealistic is right. Who in the world thinks a manager's performance, etc. doesn't affect the way their staff sees them? Not I. I don't care for that explanation. We're nowhere near that different in our thought processes.
With all due respect, it's my turn to point out that I don't think you're understanding me. You gotta accept that I understand what you're saying as you intend it, and I still disagree. It's not because some ingenious point or metaphor is lost in translation; it's because the sum of our mutual parts tells us differently. I think she sells the role, you do not. It doesn't mean our experience or anything about ourselves outranks what the other has; it just means we enjoy different cups of tea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Skaathar on Jun 15, 2019 18:03:20 GMT
If you think that a manager's behavior, performance, background and way of handling themselves in no way impacts how their staff react to them well, then we'll never agree on this topic. Because I think that's a very unrealistic way of looking at the world. Human beings are way more complicated than that. Of course I don't think that. Unrealistic is right. Who in the world thinks a manager's performance, etc. doesn't affect the way their staff sees them? Not I. I don't care for that explanation. We're nowhere near that different in our thought processes.
With all due respect, it's my turn to point out that I don't think you're understanding me. You gotta accept that I understand what you're saying as you intend it, and I still disagree. It's not because some ingenious point or metaphor is lost in translation; it's because the sum of our mutual parts tells us differently. I think she sells the role, you do not. It doesn't mean our experience or anything about ourselves outranks what the other has; it just means we enjoy different cups of tea.
In my defense, you were the one who disagreed with my post, and so I tried to explain/defend my thinking. I never disagreed with whether you liked Brie as CM or not. I absolutely respect your personal opinion in that matter. I was simply disagreeing with how you were interpreting my posts. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 18:10:46 GMT
I'll say this for Larson as Captain Marvel; when I saw you write that she looks less confident and tough and more bitchy and trying hard, my first thought was what's the difference?
Personally I think the difference is how it comes across to people, using a variation on Skaathar's manager type's idea, Type A to me are those who don't feel natural in that position, they don't deserve the position and just lucked into it and so you don't respect them in that position, Type B do feel natural in that position, they have earned that position through their own merit, so when they speak as a manager you are more inclined to go with what they want because they have your respect.
Within the MCU you could compare Carol Danvers with Steve Rogers, two superhumans gifted with their power in one way shape or form due to a defecting enemy scientist's experiments, a sort of difference is Steve was chosen to receive his power by being the best human being the doctor could find, he wanted to serve not because he wanted to fight but because he felt it was wrong for him to not be sacrificing whilst everyone else around him was, Carol on the other hand actually forces herself into that position, Mar-Vell doesn't want her with her that morning, Carol just insists she go, Mar-Vell didn't intend to give Carol her powers she just happened to get them, Steve after getting his powers only refuses orders to save the lives of captured soldiers when no other help was on the way, Carol disobeys orders when she knows help is on the way because she wants to know the truth about what happened to her, Cap then fights against an enemy that is his equal, he doesn't have an unfair advantage he's not superior to Skull physically in any way, he's also not impervious to anything, he's tougher than normal but he's still human, Carol is turbo OP, she's stronger than everyone else combined, she's impervious to damage, she can crash land on earth from space without a ship and walk away without a scratch and that's before she gets her super turbo boosters either.
Steve is Cap because he proved himself the best for the position, he earned it, Carol is Marvel because she just happened to be there, and they do a poor job of showing us why her just being there should be enough, if they spent more time showing us Carol earning he place in the air force, like honesty what they showed us makes it seem less believable imo, whats the one thing we see? her on the ropes, and even then she's not crushing it, which surely should be the point right? 80's USAF wouldn't a women need to be head and shoulders above everyone else just to be seen as an equal?
Carol in the movie appears as more an A type, which in itself isn't an issue really, that's a cool story to tell, the story being here is this A type who turns into the B type, and she does this by not being who she was before the mind fuck or who she was because of it but by merging who she was with who she is to become who she is meant to be, but the movie instead just tells us she's a B type.
Just my two pence. I had a hunch Captain America was manager B. He's my ideal manager because he's polite and can throw down hard. He's like the perfect fusion of might makes right and a soft touch. Everyone he touches with his leadership and lead by example style becomes better. I had a feeling his leadership was the best thing that happened to Wanda.
It remains to be seen if Carol is like that at all because she can go places and do things she can't lead anybody else into unless their powers are equal to or greater than her own. It must be lonely. I've known people like that too. I know it's not your argument, but as someone who punches himself out in the kitchen for years on end, missing parties (including my own birthday, today, which I'm working later), missing holidays, missing Sunday nights on the couch watching Game of Thrones with the rest of society, some people aren't built for lightening up.
I liked her, but if we're at all venturing into the territory of who's more worthy, rest assured there is only one of them that can lift Thor's hammer, and it's Steve.
|
|
