Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Posted 04 May 2015 - 03:28 PM
Posted 04 May 2015 - 03:44 PM
I don't think you quite understand what being someone's PA/EA is like. Nothing I would call an "aide" or "secretary" that's for damn sure. Executive assistants like that are literally one of the most powerful people in a company. They know more, are responsible for more, and do more than most. They're not secretaries like you're thinking. They do more than keep calendars and get coffee. That position in itself is a huge success. If Tony never gave her the company because he thought he was dying, she would still have been running it. Or she could have taken her knowledge, training, brilliance, and connections and easily found herself a high level executive at another massive corporation.
Jane is an astrophysicist. She has a PhD. She's Dr. Jane. Dr. Selvig is her mentor; what makes you think he was a failed professor? Seriously. Obtaining a doctorate degree in astrophysics isn't enough here? She was successful before Thor ever even made it onto earth.
It's the fact that you can dismiss them so easily in spite of all of this that makes your original comment misogynistic. Your implication that without the men there's "nothing left" is misogynistic. The fact that you don't see them as having already established success by the first time they appear on screen is misogynistic.
- pavonis +1 this
Posted 04 May 2015 - 04:02 PM
Executive assistant I just a title. It's nothing compared to CEO. Pepper could have been CEO somewhere else but it wouldn't have been Stark Enterprises the most powerful and richest company in the world. Many people have doctorates all over the world but not all of them have travelled to the home of the gods. Jane Norman's research was going nowhere until she got her break.
It's the narrative not me saying this. You can interpret it how you will but their successes are not solely attributable to their own making. There's nothing misogenistic about that.
Posted 04 May 2015 - 04:08 PM
I said they're both brilliant. But in the movies they got their leg up from the guys.
No. Thor did nothing for Dr. Foster - in fact, his arrival prompted SHIELD to show up. If anything, Thor was a detriment to her, and she gave him help despite the problems.
Jane was hanging round with a student, a bum and a failed professor before she met Thor and her well formulated theories proved to be right. However. She didn't invent trans-dimensional travel. It was always there. Now she tours universities giving lectures on it.
Of course she was "hanging 'round" with a student. That's what Darcy was there for - to be an assistant. There's absolutely no evidence that Selvig is a failed professor - Foster explicitly said she asked him to fly out to New Mexico when we meet them in Thor. He wasn't there just to be there. Foster was looking for some peer support about her theory, and turned to an expert.
And who the hell is the "bum"? Do you mean Thor himself? Or are you attaching the "bum" epithet to Selvig?
Foster doesn't have to have invented anything to deserve credit for her work. Astrophysicists don't invent things, anyway. That's what engineers are for. She has an explanation (the Foster theory, as Selvig refers to it later) for the Bifrost, and that deserves accolades. Hell, I bet Thor couldn't explain how and why the Bifrost works. He just has Heimdall send him to and fro through it.
- NumberSix and Ryn +1 this
Posted 04 May 2015 - 04:35 PM
Yes. Because she just came upon Thor by happenstance. Not that her research led her to the exact spot at the exact time that a man just happened to drop out of the sky or anything. She was just there. Enjoying some girl time with an old guy, who was probably only invited to be a walking pocketbook, am I rite? Because why else would 2 young women want to be around an old guy.
Posted 04 May 2015 - 07:00 PM
One thing I did like about the first Iron Man is that Tony and Pepper didn't get together. Too often in movies like this the female exists solely as sort of a prize for the hero to get at the end of the movie. Like "you saved the day, now you get to bang this hot chick." Think Arwen in LOTR. Pepper was outside of that, she had Tony's respect and ear without being with him in that first movie. It set her apart and made her character stronger.
Although even with them together there is no way Pepper keeps her position due to sleeping with Tony, Gwyneth must be a cold fish in bed.
- Stevil +1 this
Posted 05 May 2015 - 03:54 AM
I think the bit where she was in the suit cheapened her a bit though. It would be cool for Pepper to have had some lessons first and be able to do a bit more herself. I like the idea of the suit as a life saving device, but it was a missed opportunity to show some girl power.
Posted 09 May 2015 - 11:09 AM
- Filthy Jawa +1 this
Posted 13 May 2015 - 07:12 AM
Posted 13 May 2015 - 12:18 PM
Saw it last night and felt that the pacing was off. Whedon excels at character development and relationship stress, and not just romantic relationships. Loki was a real threat in the first, but also personal. In this, Ultron was just there to be there. The mid credits scene indicates that maybe Thanos was involved, and that's why it suddenly worked, but I would have been nice to have a little more focus on that aspect. Or focus on anything but quips and fights.
That's why this film--being a bridge--does not hold up as an independent experience. Everyone knows where its going, so the producers just put this together more for necessity (of upcoming films) than for its own function.
Posted 13 May 2015 - 03:28 PM
ESB wasn't a bridge. It had some cliff hangers and story danglers for sure-- but the story it set up for itself was satisfied. Empire was about, Luke facing the darkside (and himself), Han and Leia falling in love, and the Empire beating the rebels down. All those core ideas were set up in the first act, and all of them saw fruition by the end.
- The Human Torch and Justus +1 this
Posted 13 May 2015 - 03:57 PM
Posted 13 May 2015 - 04:09 PM
They took what could have been an intriguing story and instead made it solely action scenes broken up by setting up the next film. They didn't do a great job of telling a story with this film, it played more like a two and a half hour commercial.
It's not that it connects two films, but that it seems to have no real purpose beyond that. Every other Marvel film has existed to tell a story and then it also contained some Easter Eggs to set up the next Avengers film. This one ignored a lot of the subtlety.
On a different note, what's the timeline for this? IM3 ended with Stark blowing up his suits and "retiring" and this was all about a party of his retirement, so does this take place between the big fight in IM3 and the suit destruction?
- The Human Torch +1 this