Captain Marvel (2019)

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

Grizzlebeard

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
2,278
2,435
On what objective criteria would you base that ? PS: Jennifer Lawrence has 119 awards and 183 nominations out of 34 credits.

The implication there is that because they win an oscar or a golden globe they're good actors. It's usually the case but doesn't always ring true.

There are plenty of amazing actors who have won neither.
 

a c i d.f l y

ಠ_ಠ
<Silver Donator>
20,062
99,466
How does your science work ? Because the objective criteria is awards wins and nominations. Going by imdb, Larson has 64 wins and 63 nominations (with the most prestigious being an Academy Award in a leading role), Blunt has 22 wins and 96 nominations (with the most prestigious being a Golden Globe for a supporting role in a TV movie). I guess an argument can be made that Blunt's awards and nominations are spread over 10ish works in her 48 credits, while Larson's are mostly focused on 3 works out of 65 credits (but 18 of those credits are music videos as a teenager and tv shows as a child).
Because she's English.
 

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,036
On what objective criteria would you base that ? PS: Jennifer Lawrence has 119 awards and 183 nominations out of 34 credits.

There seems to be am amazing correlation to how close actresses were to a certain media mogul with profound sway over various awards ceremonies and how many awards an actress received.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
How does your science work ? Because the objective criteria is awards wins and nominations. Going by imdb, Larson has 64 wins and 63 nominations (with the most prestigious being an Academy Award in a leading role), Blunt has 22 wins and 96 nominations (with the most prestigious being a Golden Globe for a supporting role in a TV movie). I guess an argument can be made that Blunt's awards and nominations are spread over 10ish works in her 48 credits, while Larson's are mostly focused on 3 works out of 65 credits (but 18 of those credits are music videos as a teenager and tv shows as a child).

Holy shit you don't even know what the word objective means.

TV and movie awards are literally peoples opinions you dumb fuck
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 2 users

Szlia

Member
6,629
1,374
Holy shit you don't even know what the word objective means.

TV and movie awards are literally peoples opinions you dumb fuck
You must be a sophist. I chose a metric where we can discuss without injecting our own subjective opinion. We can objectively say that both actresses are acclaimed by the public, the critics and their peers. We can objectively quantify these thousands of subjectivities looking at the number of awards and nominations and do so using the same source as a way to fairly compare different actresses. If you want, we can debate our individual subjective opinions on the matter, but we might reach a dead end pretty quickly considering I saw 10 movies and a whole TV show with Brie Larson and I have not seen Captain Marvel. We can beat around the bush, but that's the crux of the matter : people saw Blunt in movies they liked (Sicario, Edge of Tomorrow) in which she delivered serviceable performances and saw Larson in Captain Marvel, in which she apparently delivers a poor performance and in Kong where her part is non-existent. So, suddenly, Larson is a no talent hack and Blunt an amazing actress (amusingly her best acting job that I have seen was in Your Sister's Sister that I doubt that you or a c i d.f l y a c i d.f l y have seen). Same goes with Kristen Stewart and Jennifer Lawrence that are labeled as terrible actresses because movies based on teen-lit are crap.

It's very possible that they are terrible persons and/or dumb as bricks, but if that had anything to do with being a good performer, that would be known. It's very understandable that things you know or think you know about a person can spoil your enjoyment of a film in which that person acts, but again, that's not related to the matter at hand. As for Lithose Lithose 's casting couch implications, they are pretty absurd : I did not go through Brie Larson's whole filmography, but none of her significant film and TV credits have anything to do with Miramax nor The Weinstein Company.

That being said, the metric a c i d.f l y a c i d.f l y chose for his scientific assessment does not lack merit ! Having had to deal for a little while with short films, a format in which bad acting is rampant, british actors were somehow always good ! Maybe not 3000% better, but good.
 
  • 1Cringe
  • 1Pathetic
Reactions: 1 users

Kiroy

Marine Biologist
<Bronze Donator>
35,309
102,285
You must be a sophist. I chose a metric where we can discuss without injecting our own subjective opinion. We can objectively say that both actresses are acclaimed by the public, the critics and their peers. We can objectively quantify these thousands of subjectivities looking at the number of awards and nominations and do so using the same source as a way to fairly compare different actresses. If you want, we can debate our individual subjective opinions on the matter, but we might reach a dead end pretty quickly considering I saw 10 movies and a whole TV show with Brie Larson and I have not seen Captain Marvel. We can beat around the bush, but that's the crux of the matter : people saw Blunt in movies they liked (Sicario, Edge of Tomorrow) in which she delivered serviceable performances and saw Larson in Captain Marvel, in which she apparently delivers a poor performance and in Kong where her part is non-existent. So, suddenly, Larson is a no talent hack and Blunt an amazing actress (amusingly her best acting job that I have seen was in Your Sister's Sister that I doubt that you or a c i d.f l y a c i d.f l y have seen). Same goes with Kristen Stewart and Jennifer Lawrence that are labeled as terrible actresses because movies based on teen-lit are crap.

It's very possible that they are terrible persons and/or dumb as bricks, but if that had anything to do with being a good performer, that would be known. It's very understandable that things you know or think you know about a person can spoil your enjoyment of a film in which that person acts, but again, that's not related to the matter at hand. As for Lithose Lithose 's casting couch implications, they are pretty absurd : I did not go through Brie Larson's whole filmography, but none of her significant film and TV credits have anything to do with Miramax nor The Weinstein Company.

That being said, the metric a c i d.f l y a c i d.f l y chose for his scientific assessment does not lack merit ! Having had to deal for a little while with short films, a format in which bad acting is rampant, british actors were somehow always good ! Maybe not 3000% better, but good.

you heard it hear first folks, weinstein was the only hollywood mogul trading stardom for sex
 
  • 2Like
Reactions: 1 users

Szlia

Member
6,629
1,374
Kiroy Kiroy Don't be disingenuous. Lithose mentioned "a certain media mogul with profound sway over various awards ceremonies" (the direct target being Jennifer Lawrence's award winning part in the Weinstein produced Silver Linings Playbook - even though she had been nominated two years before for Winter's Bone that has nothing to do with Weinstein). It should be mentioned that the sway Miramax had is because they were the first to realize investing in winning awards is a lot cheaper than buying ad space. The crucial battle is having the voters actually see your movies. Miramax realized that sending out VHSs (and then DVDs) to people or doing "for your consideration" full pages in Variety was not great and more could be done, so they organized things like screenings for members of the academy. At the end of the day though, the film and performances still have to be good to win. They don't have to be the best, just the best of what most voters have seen.
 

a c i d.f l y

ಠ_ಠ
<Silver Donator>
20,062
99,466
My wife's favorite Blunt movie is Young Victoria, which will also be the name of our second daughter. Movie is boring as hell, but she's great in it. I really enjoyed her performance in The Girl on the Train. Salmon Fishing in Yemen. The Adjustment Bureau. And I have actually seen Your Sister's Sister. Fuckin leftist shill Mike Birbiglia is in that forgettable movie. I've actually seen a good 80% of things she's been in.

I didn't even know who Larson was until Captain Marvel. And skimming her IMDB there's nothing on the list that I've seen or would have an interest in watching, save Unicorn Store, which I watched because of Sam Jackson, and was impressed by her performance, even if it's a really fucking weird movie. I've also seen Jump Street and Scott Pilgrim, but it's like "she was in those?"

Watching some of her YouTube clips, and general sjw personality makes her look ugly and fake and dispondent. Then they stand her up next to RDJ, Hemsworth, Evans, Rudd, and direct her to be the most boring casting I've ever seen in a critically acclaimed movie (lol lol lol), which is second only to Black Panther in being the worst of the Marvel movies. BP wasn't Boseman's fault either. My hopes and expectations were monstrous after Winter Soldier. More a fault of the shit, woke writing. Though he, too, was basically an unknown to me up to that point as well.

Kristen Stewart, like Robert Pattinson, were actually both pretty decent... prior to Twilight. Stewart seemed to stop caring after that. Curious to see how Pattinson does as Batman.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user

Fucker

Log Wizard
12,611
28,705
Kristen Stewart, like Robert Pattinson, were actually both pretty decent... prior to Twilight. Stewart seemed to stop caring after that. Curious to see how Pattinson does as Batman.
KS was ok in Personal Shopper. I haven't paid attention to her other than that. RP's Batman I bet is going to be a flop.
 

Maul

Dental Dammer
3,508
10,715
Last two movies I saw Kirsten Stewart in were that underwater one and Charlie's Angel's and I'm ashamed to admit, but she was fucking hot in those films.
 
Last edited:
  • 1WTF
  • 1Seriously?
Reactions: 1 users

a c i d.f l y

ಠ_ಠ
<Silver Donator>
20,062
99,466
Last two movies I saw Kirsten Stewart in ere that underwater one and Charlie's Angel's and I'm ashed to admit, but she was fucking hot in those films.
Her Alien 3 Ripley could use some work.
underwater-lede.jpg


Alright on Charlie's Angel's. It's a wig, unfortunately.
tumblr_03131f44b2c7d63083a8b3afc3cfb915_5c933c6f_400.gif
 
  • 1Mother of God
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
43,727
52,269
Kristen Stewart is one of the few chicks I actually think still looks hot with a dyke haircut.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1Barf
  • 1Solidarity
Reactions: 4 users

Malakriss

Golden Baronet of the Realm
12,656
11,973
Is that Ethan Hawke playing the scrawny version of Captain America?
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 users