Captain Marvel Fame & Recognition

[Bohandas]

Look, I'm not going to argue this.

Ultimately, this is what you're doing --

Spoiler

Show

More like this around 43 seconds in. "They're not spelled the same but they mean the same"

[Peelee]

Note to self, make jokes less subtle.

[Aedilred]

This is an etymological fallacy. I don't think the fact that "Miss" once specifically designated a woman who is not married is widely remembered among people who aren't either ancient and/or english majors*. Furthermore, I doubt that anyone other than english majors alone would be able to tell you which is which, or even know that there was a difference beyond spelling, without consulting wikipedia.

This is absolutely not the case. Not an etymological fallacy or anything like that. If anything you're the one applying an etymological fallacy later in your post by suggesting that because they're all ultimately abbreviations of the same word ("mistress") they all mean the same.

Standard use is "Miss" for an unmarried woman, "Mrs" for married and "Ms" for unspecified. Originally, "Ms" was probably most commonly used for women who were divorced, or elderly spinsters, but it has now entered general use as "unspecified marital status". Now maybe this is different in the US but it is definitely, 100%, the case in correspondence where titles are used in the UK. Just because you didn't realise there was a difference doesn't mean there isn't one. If you're using "Miss" and "Ms" interchangeably, you're doing it wrong.

As has been pointed out, the entire point in "Ms" is that it is neither "Miss" nor "Mrs" and therefore leaves marital status unstated.

[Willie the Duck]

This is an etymological fallacy.

Throwing around links to fallacy explanations will not impress anyone. We're all nerds on the internet, we've been to that dog and pony show before.

I don't think the fact that "Miss" once specifically designated a woman who is not married is widely remembered among people who aren't either ancient and/or english [sic] majors*. Furthermore, I doubt that anyone other than english [sic] majors alone would be able to tell you which is which, or even know that there was a difference beyond spelling, without consulting wikipedia.

Nor will suggesting that no one will care but English majors, so your mistake doesn't matter. No one else has suggested that any of this really matters, only that it was a mistake (and regardless of any runaround, in the end you cannot retroactively make 'Miss' be the word in the character name). You were the one who, when it was pointed out that you used 'Miss' where the character's actual name uses 'Ms.,' have continued to repeatedly double down. This is entirely a self-made wound. This could have been resolved in a second if your response to Kitten Champion's "It's Ms. Marvel. Not Miss." comment was, 'So it is, my mistake.'

Now maybe this is different in the US but it is definitely, 100%, the case in correspondence where titles are used in the UK.

Nope. It is the same in the United States.

[Bohandas]

This is absolutely not the case. Not an etymological fallacy or anything like that. If anything you're the one applying an etymological fallacy later in your post by suggesting that because they're all ultimately abbreviations of the same word ("mistress") they all mean the same.

Standard use is "Miss" for an unmarried woman, "Mrs" for married and "Ms" for unspecified. Originally, "Ms" was probably most commonly used for women who were divorced, or elderly spinsters, but it has now entered general use as "unspecified marital status". Now maybe this is different in the US but it is definitely, 100%, the case in correspondence where titles are used in the UK. Just because you didn't realise there was a difference doesn't mean there isn't one. If you're using "Miss" and "Ms" interchangeably, you're doing it wrong.

As has been pointed out, the entire point in "Ms" is that it is neither "Miss" nor "Mrs" and therefore leaves marital status unstated.

Given that Ms. and Miss are pronounced exactly the same the only people who are going to be differentiating the two are people who for some reason are frequently seeing them written out and who are paying an obsessive amount of attention.

Furthermore my position is not an etymological fallacy because I'm appealing to the past thirty years, not to the 18th and earlier century usage. I merely bring up the 18th century usage to admit that my earlier accusation that Kitten Champion was using the etymological fallacy was technically incorrect as a true etymological fallacy would appeal to the original usage, whereas Kitten Champion was appealing to a usage that, while obsolescent, was technically not the original and thus arguably not the etymological fallacy

[Darth Credence]

Given that Ms. and Miss are pronounced exactly the same the only people who are going to be differentiating the two are people who for some reason are frequently seeing them written out and who are paying an obsessive amount of attention.

Furthermore my position is not an etymological fallacy because I'm appealing to the past thirty years, not to the 18th and earlier century usage. I merely bring up the 18th century usage to admit that my earlier accusation that Kitten Champion was using the etymological fallacy was technically incorrect as a true etymological fallacy would appeal to the original usage, whereas Kitten Champion was appealing to a usage that, while obsolescent, was technically not the original and thus arguably not the etymological fallacy

Ms. and Miss are not pronounced the same. Not really even that close - Ms. has a z sound, Miss has an s sound.

[Peelee]

Given that Ms. and Miss are pronounced exactly the same

See the video that started this whole thing (well, my too-subtle joke started it, but still). Someone says, "Miss Marvel!" She responds, "That's mizz Marvel to you!" Response written phonetically, because she is saying "Ms." and clearly differentiating it from "Miss".

[Lethologica]

Given that Ms. and Miss are pronounced exactly the same the only people who are going to be differentiating the two are people who for some reason are frequently seeing them written out and who are paying an obsessive amount of attention.

...Both of which are likely true for people reading Ms. Marvel comics? So even if the distinction didn't apply in the general case (which it absolutely does, as others have pointed out), it is especially pertinent to this specific one.

[Knaight]

Given that Ms. and Miss are pronounced exactly the same the only people who are going to be differentiating the two are people who for some reason are frequently seeing them written out and who are paying an obsessive amount of attention.

Yeah, homophones are deep linguistic lore, known only to specialists. The whole idea that there might be two words with different meanings but the same pronunciation is too hard to understand for anyone who isn't totally obsessive. Also writing is a degenerate form of language, wholly subsurvient to the spoken word. Nobody writes nearly as often as they speak, let alone more; there's orders of magnitudes separating them. It's not like people carry a device where they could send some sort of message, in text (we'll call these "text messages", or "texts" for short), and it's not like there were important institutions where you could go to some sort of office with some post you wrote a letter on and send it for literally centuries.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

You're all wrong. It's not Miss or Ms. or Mrs. or Dr. for that matter.

It's 'Captain.'

Wait...if Blade kicked off the trend that created Underworld, and Underworld created the modern vampire vs. werewolf rivalry....does that mean Blade is indirectly responsible for Twilight?

Well if Blade's responsible for it then he should be cleaning it up, don't you think? Stake + Heart = Problem solved!

Slightly related, I'm only familiar with Blade from the old Spiderman cartoons, were the movies any good? I know they're rebooting it for the MCU, so I've been wondering if it would be worth tracking down the originals.

[Rynjin]

Well if Blade's responsible for it then he should be cleaning it up, don't you think? Stake + Heart = Problem solved!

Slightly related, I'm only familiar with Blade from the old Spiderman cartoons, were the movies any good? I know they're rebooting it for the MCU, so I've been wondering if it would be worth tracking down the originals.

Blade and Blade 2 are pretty alright. I remember Blade: Trinity being, err, not very good.

[JadedDM]

Given that Ms. and Miss are pronounced exactly the same the only people who are going to be differentiating the two are people who for some reason are frequently seeing them written out and who are paying an obsessive amount of attention.

Miss sounds like 'miss.'
Mrs. sounds like 'missus.'
Ms. sounds like 'miz.'

[comicshorse]

Well if Blade's responsible for it then he should be cleaning it up, don't you think? Stake + Heart = Problem solved!

Slightly related, I'm only familiar with Blade from the old Spiderman cartoons, were the movies any good? I know they're rebooting it for the MCU, so I've been wondering if it would be worth tracking down the originals.

Well, IMHO, the first was pretty good (worth seeing if only for the start which is pure Sabbat party straight from V:TM).
The second is excellent. Directed by Guillermo Del Toro with verve and style and notable (for the elderly viewer like me ) that one of the main bad guys used to be half of the boy band 'Bros'
The third is dire. Just utterly bad.
(I'll resist the temptation to compare them to a recently completed movie trilogy)
There was also a short lived TV series that was....Ok as I remember. But severely hampered by the fact that Blade is a sword wielding, vampire decapitating, action hero and the actor playing Blade in the series was pretty terrible at the action scenes

P.S
Damn beaten to it

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Blade and Blade 2 are pretty alright. I remember Blade: Trinity being, err, not very good.

Like the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies? I'll have to remember to avoid the third one then.

EDIT: @comicshorse: Don't worry I appreciate the feedback regardless.

[Jerrykhor]

Ms. sounds like 'miz.'

Spoiler

Show

[Kitten Champion]

The third Raimi Spider-Man movie was done in by the studio for the most part, but there's definitely some heart there regardless. Blade Trinity however was made at the point where Wesley Snipes really didn't give a damn, and it definitely shows.

Blade is cheesy 90's fun, some great stupid one-liners and lots of attractive people in shadowy industrial locations wearing the blackest of leather clothing.

Blade II has a serviceable enough story that I can barely remember, but the real draw is that the action scenes are actually pretty enjoyable and Del Toro's penchant for cool horror imagery is on full display.

[Aedilred]

Like the Sam Raimi Spiderman movies? I'll have to remember to avoid the third one then.

EDIT: @comicshorse: Don't worry I appreciate the feedback regardless.

This actually seems to be a relatively common phenomenon among pre-MCU comic book films. The first film is good; the second film is better. The third is, at best, a bit rubbish. In the event the series makes it to a fourth, it’s mind-bogglingly terrible.
Holds good for Batman, Superman, Blade, Spiderman and the pre-reboot run of X-Men films. Even the Nolan Batman films are arguable.

Hellboy never got its third instalment, which in light of the above, may have been for the best.

It notably doesn’t apply for Fantastic Four (or Transformers) which started badly and got worse.

[Bohandas]

Hellboy never got its third instalment, which in light of the above, may have been for the best.

Didn't they make a third one last year?

And in any case, it already breaks the pattern regardless because the second one was terrible.

[comicshorse]

Didn't they make a third one last year?

They did and yes it WAS terrible

[Bohandas]

They did and yes it WAS terrible

I didn't see it, but it looked better than the second one (albeit still bad)

[GloatingSwine]

I didn't see it, but it looked better than the second one (albeit still bad)

It very much was not. Del Toro's Hellboy knew and cared about the source material, even if it was designed specifically not to be totally faithful to it (Mike Mignola specifically wanted Del Toro to change it to make his own version). And that extended to the second one, which was merely not quite as fresh and interesting as the first.

The 2019 rebootquel did not. It's terrible as a movie and it neither knows or cares about the spirit of the original source.

[Aedilred]

I believe the Hellboy movie last year was a reboot, rather than the third instalment in the trilogy.

Same goes for the 4 movie a few years back, in relation to the Fantastic four movies of the 2000s.

[Rodin]

I believe the Hellboy movie last year was a reboot, rather than the third instalment in the trilogy.

Same goes for the 4 movie a few years back, in relation to the Fantastic four movies of the 2000s.

Fantastic Four is another that breaks the general pattern. The first was decent, the second was a bit rubbish, and that made them not make a third.

[Kareeah_Indaga]

Hulk (not the MCU movie The Incredible Hulk. The one before that) also breaks the pattern, it was terrible in the first installment and as far as I know never got any sequels to be worse than the first before the reboot into the MCU.

[Kitten Champion]

I think the issue with a lot of them was the Spider-Man's success led to them rushing out similar-ish products relatively quickly in the mid-2000's.

Fantastic Four and Daredevil are conspicuous as trying to chase the coattails of Raimi hype-train. It was within the expectations of the audiences of the time, however it looks in hindsight.

Though the third X-Men movie falling flat was its own, sad misadventure.