@the_spyder Well, I actually think the Bixby series was excellent, and it gave us that quote so many people use… "Mr. McGee, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry." My dislike was for them calling him David (David Bruce Banner) and cutting out the military being out for him. Wait… you have this huge rage monster appearing all across the country and the military *isn't* involved?! The only guy chasing him is a reporter? What?!"
Black Widow also did a pretty bit of industrial espionage as well. And I think it might have been Cap that she tried to kill, because as I recall, Hawkeye's exposure to the hero he was supposed to kill was what turned him to the side of right. And the kill was his first/only foray into villainy (again, as I recall).
The only thing they would have to keep out of the movie is about how Russia trained their female spy operatives. One of their last tasks before "graduation" from spy school was how not to be broken by sexual assault. So they would take these 17 year old female operatives to an auditorium and have them be sexually assaulted (i.e. raped) by multiple Russian army recruits after the end of the recruits' training (this being a "graduation present" of sorts for them :vomit:) I am sure Disney would't want that in a movie regardless if it was a truth of the time.
And yeah, the guy who played Doctor Strange was a curly-haired dark blonde guy. And this was the 70's, so bad clothing choices and all. The only interesting thing was a Pentagram(ish) skylight he had in his house/Condo.
Oh, I agree that the Bill Bixby Hulk was superb. I was just agreeing that the two movie outings that you quoted were not stellar. And also noting that the Bill Bixby Hulk was NOT the hulk that we knew from the comics.
And Dr Strange?
(it's a joke. I think that Benedict will do a fantastic job assuming that it is written and directed well.)
Come on guys, let's get back on topic. Should women be allowed to leave the kitchen?
Of course not. The question we need to debate is 'should we let women own shoes, even if they are required to be barefoot in the kitchen all day?'
I've completely missed the point then. I thought it was a given they were in the kitchen, but that they somehow still had enough power outlets left over after all the kitchen appliances were plugged in, that they could also have a computer there. And then the question was, why would they play BG, aren't there any good cooking simulators?
Come on guys, let's get back on topic. Should women be allowed to leave the kitchen?
Of course not. The question we need to debate is 'should we let women own shoes, even if they are required to be barefoot in the kitchen all day?'
I've completely missed the point then. I thought it was a given they were in the kitchen, but that they somehow still had enough power outlets left over after all the kitchen appliances were plugged in, that they could also have a computer there. And then the question was, why would they play BG, aren't there any good cooking simulators?
The only Video Game women are supposed to be playing is Cooking Mama.
@the_spyder Because the interest in those characters is not big enough to carry a movie, in most cases. Movies about some heroines have been made and flopped spectacularly - Electra, Catwoman. The really popular heroines are part of teams, and play prominent roles in those movies (i.e. Phoenix and Mystique in X-Men). Alone, they'd likely not be more in demand than a solo movie about let's say Beast or Cyclops.
The only "agenda" I can see in cartoons and shows aimed at children is a certain education - be it Sesame Street or similar shows explaining letters, numbers, left, right, up and down, or be it shows for slightly older children that teach values like friendship, family, honesty, curiosity. That message can be found in anything, regardless of genre, pretty openly (Captain Planet caring about nature) or more subtle (teams or groups where the moral lesson each week is 'together we are better, we shouldn't argue').
Everyone would rather watch a Jean movie over watching Cyclops talk about how bloody perfect he is.
That said, I think Elektra and Catwoman (I tried to watch all of Elektra... did not watch Catwoman) COULD have worked if they weren't garbage movies aimed at immature frat-boys.
I kinda agree the 'agenda' may not actually be conscious, but its the rigid patterns/dogma that keep appearing that constitute the 'agenda' in most mainstream stuff. If you have the fortune/misfortune to be familiar with critical theories, many systems rely on examining media looking for specific tropes/subtext. The most famous is probably feminist criticism, which looks mostly at how women are portrayed (in part). Some cartoons designed around being 'super-nice' end up pretty questionable, having brought along a bigotted bit of agenda unawares. Which usually is hilariously offensive now, ie Blackface Bugs Bunny.
@DreadKhan A Catwoman movie might be interesting, but not if you dress her up as a blinged-out stripperiffic character. Keep her what she is, a thief who is morally gray. Sometimes she helps people out and does good stuff, but mostly, she's a sneak thief type. She *can* be sexy, but that's not the core of who she is. When they made the movie, they sexed her up to appeal to a certain demographic, so the movie spent more time on that, to which I can only make THIS face:
@LadyRhian Oh, I totally agree either COULD be a really great movie, and for similar reasons; both are gritty, badass criminals with tons of nuance. They are a bit anti-hero for the zeitgeist just now, but strong female characters are trending. Both failed due to pandering to an audience that doesn't really matter.
Your comment about Black Widow's disturbing origins tells me we're WAY more likely to have a questionable porno parody than an actual movie, but if Antman has a movie, Black Widow has a shot, though most studios would hesitate at referencing gang-rape, let alone featuring it. I think the solid cameos Black Widow had might have been preparation though, introduce her to an unfamiliar audience.
@KidCarnival - where's the proof that "There isn't enough interest" in a movie for Black Widow? Certainly there is TONS of debate on the topic just about everywhere you look on the internet. Heck, they even put a petition to the Marvel distribution to bring the number of products on the market for Black Widow up in line with the rest of the Avengers (including Hawkeye) and it actually made a difference.
As far as Catwoman and Electra, I whole heartedly disagree that the reasons those movies failed was because there was no interest, or that they were bad because of a female lead. I think they failed because they were really terrible movies, poorly written, directed and implemented all the way down the line. I was so psyched for the Catwoman movie that I saw it on opening night. I left with such a sour taste in my mouth that I couldn't eat for a week (hyperbole). REALLY bad writing. REALLY poor costume design. Completely altering the character and who she is in the Batman Universe. It was less a 'Catwoman' movie and more an excuse to parade Halle Berry around in a stripper's costume.
Electra was a whole other ball of wax. Taking off as it did from the Horrible Daredevil movie, it just went downhill from there.
Both COULD have been great movies. Both failed, not because of the female lead, but because of just about every single element going into the movie.
Take Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Xena Warrior Princess. These are both Massively popular TV shows with strong female leads. They have CULT level followings and show that it can be done. Throw in Veronica Mars and a few others and there's proof that it CAN absolutely be done. It just ISN'T done as often... Hmmm. I wonder why?
I am usually the last person in the world to believe in conspiracy theories. I generally don't believe in agendas or clandestine "Powers that Be" who move in the shadows. But There's plenty of evidence out there that a Black Widow movie would be popular (provided it was written and directed well). Certainly there is a LOT more reason to believe that would be a lot more popular than something like Ant Man or Doctor Strange.
@the_spyder@DreadKhan Both movies were less about the characters than excuses to parade around women in stripperiffic costumes. In other words, they were meant to be eye candy, story was, at best, tertiary to the entire thing. I mean, I'm not saying they can't wear outfits that make them look sexy, but at least have a valid story reason beyond "Because it will make the men watching it drool like Pavlov's dogs". I mean, imagine a kick-ass woman who dresses like that *because* it makes men underestimate her. She's an assassin and when a man thinks "Oh, prostitute," or whatever, and takes his attention off her, she kills him without mercy. She doesn't dress like that all the time, or even to be sexy on her own time, because, hey, that stuff is for work.
So when she puts on the scanty stuff, the audience knows, this means someone is about to die. Perhaps it doesn't work 100% of the time, but enough that it gives her a significant edge. That's a valid reason to do it. And if it doesn't work, she can still buckle down and kill people anyway. It's just a distraction.
I would guess that sales of comics play a big role in determining the popularity of characters. Wolverine had various solo series and guest stars in everything and anything; same with Spiderman and Deadpool. The Avengers were always meant to be a super-team consisting of already popular characters from solo series, so it isn't surprising they are getting movies. And it also isn't surprising that there is a ranking of popularity among them. I'm sure if Marvel had smelled increased interest in a female character, they would be pushing out movies like there's no tomorrow already. For now, the male characters seem to be in more demand.
Of course the movies were crap because they were crap. But with bigger interest in the characters, it wouldn't bother people too much. There are tons of movies that are full of plotholes and badly written, but people accept them as "popcorn movies" because at least the idea, a character or something else was "good enough". These two examples were unforgivably bad, but the screams for remakes were not loud enough.
I'm not saying the bad movies are a reason to not make more. I'm saying that these bad movies didn't create enough interest in BETTER movies about these particular characters. Daredevil was also a flop and I'm not seeing a huge reboot of that either. On the other hand, make a bad movie about a popular character - i.e. Punisher - and people will be interested in a better movie. Not because the Punisher is a guy, but because he is a more popular character.
You can't force people to show more interest in a character because it would be the PC thing to have equal numbers of male and female main characters. As far as I know, ticket (and merchandise) sales are not divided in sales by men and sales by women. Which leads me to believe that female fans are interested in roughly the same characters as male fans. To stick with the Marvel example, I know a lot more women who are fans of Wolverine, Deadpool, Iron Man, Spider Man and so on than Emma Frost, Dazzler, Spider Woman and such. The former list is "what people like". The latter is "what people are rather indifferent about". It's the same list for male people as it is for female people. Why in the world would a studio say "hey, let's make a movie about a character people aren't that interested in instead of using our budget for a movie about a fan favorite"? WHY? Making superhero movies isn't about social justice, feminism or equality. It's about making money. Of course you push the characters people pay to see, regardless of their gender. DC happens to have a very popular female character, so they push Wonder Woman. If Phoenix or Storm, the more popular Marvel heroines, could compete with Iron Man and Wolverine the way Wonder Woman can keep up with Superman and Batman, Marvel would throw a Storm or Phoenix movie out in a heartbeat.
Maybe the reason Wolverine is more popular than Spider Woman is because the COMICS where almost entirely written by men, so when there where female characters, they where badly written.
At one time, I feared I was bad at writing female characters... then I realized I was just a bad writer, and I felt better.
I think placing too much importance on comics is one reason some movies flop; the emphasis like for all genre movies must always be making a good movie. I don't think the fact that a demographic is not served already proves it wouldn't be a viable market. There have been successful 'feminist' movies, yet there is still claims the market 'won't like them'. Pure BS, obviously, the question is why is tradition so strong its overwhelming potential earnings.
Sales of comic books don't necessarily correlate with how well a movie performs. How many people read "Guardians of the Galaxy" before seeing the movie? An informal survey of my extremely geeky friends suggests: not many. I didn't even know it WAS a comic book but I saw it in the theater three times.
People say that "women don't read comic books" but even Marvel and DC don't track gendered market share well. The article quotes a Marvel exec as saying anecdotally that female readership keeps rising and they're marketing more and more comics to women. And, surprise surprise, when they market to women they make more money.
Movie makers budget far less for women-led superhero flicks than ones with men in the lead, then act surprised when no one likes their low-budget flicks showing off women in skimpy outfits. Daredevil had an $80 million dollar budget and Elektra had a $65 million dollar budget. Catwoman had a $100 million dollar budget and Batman Begins, a year later, got a $150 million dollar budget. I would list more but OH WAIT THERE ARE NO MORE.
Women have shown time and time again that they are willing to pay to see movies about heroic women. Fury Road has made almost $400 million dollars already. And despite all our clamoring and begging and waving fistfuls of dollars yelling TAKE MY MONEY, we get Ant-Man and Spider-Man. It's bull and it's bad business.
I DC happens to have a very popular female character, so they push Wonder Woman. If Phoenix or Storm, the more popular Marvel heroines, could compete with Iron Man and Wolverine the way Wonder Woman can keep up with Superman and Batman, Marvel would throw a Storm or Phoenix movie out in a heartbeat.
Are you kidding me? The first Superman movie came out in 1978 (well, not counting "Superman and the Mole Men") and now, 37 years later, we haven't had a single Wonder Woman theatrical release. Not one. We get a cameo in Batman vs. Superman and we FINALLY get a full length movie in 2017, almost forty years after Superman flew on screen. If that's "pushing" Wonder Woman then I give up.
DC and Marvel succeed on the fame from having decades-old characters. For a long time their audience was men and they're still mostly focused on that audience. I don't think this can by contested. It's just the way things are.
There's no evidence that "for a long time their audience was men" as I linked in my post. That's a widely believed assumption with no basis in fact.
I do believe they're still mostly focused on a male audience, though I refuse to believe it's just the way things are and we can't change their minds. Take Ms. Marvel for instance, a relatively new character who's been a smash success. I hope the rumors I hear about a Kamala Khan movie are true.
Edit: And I wouldn't mind yet another Spider-Man movie if we could have one about Miles Morales. Now that he's getting his own comic line maybe there's a chance (way in the future. I think there are even fewer superhero movies with non-white leads than there are ones with women leads).
It amazes me the attitudes about women in gaming and comics etc... 25 years ago, I attended GEN CON for 5 years running. Over the course of going to the convention, the male to female ration increased from about 6 to 1 the first year to something like 1 to 1 the last year that I went. And that was 20+ years or more ago. These weren't women coming to the convention "Because of their boyfriends", but were actual game enthusiasts. If you attend San Diego Comic Con today, you will see that the attendee list is easily 50% female. If you visit Gallifrey one here in Los Angeles, you will find that it is more like 60% of the 4 thousand attendees are women. I haven't been to any Star Trek conventions lately, but I bet they are a good 50/50 as well. Not to mention Supernatural and Orphan Black, just to name a few. There is interest.
I really liked what @Amber_Scott said, and thanks very much for those links. Very useful information. i'd point out that, although they are planning a Wonder Woman movie for 2017, that has happened several times in the past and it has gotten canceled each time. I'll believe it when I am sitting in my seat on opening night, but not before. And if you have seen the new Super Girl TV preview, I shudder. It looks more like Sex and the City than Smallville, but that is merely my first impression. We will see.
Marvel has gone out of it's way to make a whole list of planned movies for the next 5 years or so. All are male leads or ensemble casts. And quite a lot of them are B-list at best, when there are already known quantities of A-list Female characters that get zero coverage. Black Widow is main stream and could absolutely pull in a crowd. Since they are doing Ant man, why not Janet Van dyne? Captain Marvel has been mentioned several teams. Over in the Xmen Universe, Jean Grey/Phoenix (not the horrible one they did in Xmen 3) could EASILY pull in a crowd. So could Mystique or Rogue. There are some big names in the comics that are female that absolutely should get a showing before Ant Man or some of the others that are in the works.
The mere fact that there are discussions here and other places, suggests that there is at least interest in a female lead movie, and one that isn't burdened with SIGNIFICANTLY reduced budget.
Black Widow is every bit as important an Avenger (in the MCU) as any other member of the team. She has more than adequately proven herself in Iron Man and Captain America movies as well as the Avengers movie. I don't pretend to know why the higher-ups at Marvel choose not to see that.
Thanks, @the_spyder . I am torn over the Supergirl trailer. The action bits (like when she catches the plane) were rad. Also, Calista Flockheart. The Sex and the City bits, as you put it, made me cringe. If they keep it more action-focused it could be great. Melissa Benoist seems to have buckets of charisma so I'm intrigued.
Comments
Black Widow also did a pretty bit of industrial espionage as well. And I think it might have been Cap that she tried to kill, because as I recall, Hawkeye's exposure to the hero he was supposed to kill was what turned him to the side of right. And the kill was his first/only foray into villainy (again, as I recall).
The only thing they would have to keep out of the movie is about how Russia trained their female spy operatives. One of their last tasks before "graduation" from spy school was how not to be broken by sexual assault. So they would take these 17 year old female operatives to an auditorium and have them be sexually assaulted (i.e. raped) by multiple Russian army recruits after the end of the recruits' training (this being a "graduation present" of sorts for them :vomit:) I am sure Disney would't want that in a movie regardless if it was a truth of the time.
And yeah, the guy who played Doctor Strange was a curly-haired dark blonde guy. And this was the 70's, so bad clothing choices and all. The only interesting thing was a Pentagram(ish) skylight he had in his house/Condo.
And Dr Strange?
(it's a joke. I think that Benedict will do a fantastic job assuming that it is written and directed well.)
Peter Hooten as Dr. Strange...
The only "agenda" I can see in cartoons and shows aimed at children is a certain education - be it Sesame Street or similar shows explaining letters, numbers, left, right, up and down, or be it shows for slightly older children that teach values like friendship, family, honesty, curiosity. That message can be found in anything, regardless of genre, pretty openly (Captain Planet caring about nature) or more subtle (teams or groups where the moral lesson each week is 'together we are better, we shouldn't argue').
That said, I think Elektra and Catwoman (I tried to watch all of Elektra... did not watch Catwoman) COULD have worked if they weren't garbage movies aimed at immature frat-boys.
I kinda agree the 'agenda' may not actually be conscious, but its the rigid patterns/dogma that keep appearing that constitute the 'agenda' in most mainstream stuff. If you have the fortune/misfortune to be familiar with critical theories, many systems rely on examining media looking for specific tropes/subtext. The most famous is probably feminist criticism, which looks mostly at how women are portrayed (in part). Some cartoons designed around being 'super-nice' end up pretty questionable, having brought along a bigotted bit of agenda unawares. Which usually is hilariously offensive now, ie Blackface Bugs Bunny.
At least we're getting Captain Marvel. Still hoping for a Black Widow movie. Until then I'll always have Furiosa...
Ah, Furiosa...we need another movie with both Furiosa and Max but we also need a solo Furiosa movie. Get to work, scriptwriters and producers.
I'm pretending it doesn't exist, much like the new Jem movie.
Your comment about Black Widow's disturbing origins tells me we're WAY more likely to have a questionable porno parody than an actual movie, but if Antman has a movie, Black Widow has a shot, though most studios would hesitate at referencing gang-rape, let alone featuring it. I think the solid cameos Black Widow had might have been preparation though, introduce her to an unfamiliar audience.
As far as Catwoman and Electra, I whole heartedly disagree that the reasons those movies failed was because there was no interest, or that they were bad because of a female lead. I think they failed because they were really terrible movies, poorly written, directed and implemented all the way down the line. I was so psyched for the Catwoman movie that I saw it on opening night. I left with such a sour taste in my mouth that I couldn't eat for a week (hyperbole). REALLY bad writing. REALLY poor costume design. Completely altering the character and who she is in the Batman Universe. It was less a 'Catwoman' movie and more an excuse to parade Halle Berry around in a stripper's costume.
Electra was a whole other ball of wax. Taking off as it did from the Horrible Daredevil movie, it just went downhill from there.
Both COULD have been great movies. Both failed, not because of the female lead, but because of just about every single element going into the movie.
Take Buffy the Vampire Slayer or Xena Warrior Princess. These are both Massively popular TV shows with strong female leads. They have CULT level followings and show that it can be done. Throw in Veronica Mars and a few others and there's proof that it CAN absolutely be done. It just ISN'T done as often... Hmmm. I wonder why?
I am usually the last person in the world to believe in conspiracy theories. I generally don't believe in agendas or clandestine "Powers that Be" who move in the shadows. But There's plenty of evidence out there that a Black Widow movie would be popular (provided it was written and directed well). Certainly there is a LOT more reason to believe that would be a lot more popular than something like Ant Man or Doctor Strange.
All my personal opinion.
So when she puts on the scanty stuff, the audience knows, this means someone is about to die. Perhaps it doesn't work 100% of the time, but enough that it gives her a significant edge. That's a valid reason to do it. And if it doesn't work, she can still buckle down and kill people anyway. It's just a distraction.
But I kinda feel like half of this should go in the Marvel thread... >_>;;
Of course the movies were crap because they were crap. But with bigger interest in the characters, it wouldn't bother people too much. There are tons of movies that are full of plotholes and badly written, but people accept them as "popcorn movies" because at least the idea, a character or something else was "good enough". These two examples were unforgivably bad, but the screams for remakes were not loud enough.
You can't force people to show more interest in a character because it would be the PC thing to have equal numbers of male and female main characters. As far as I know, ticket (and merchandise) sales are not divided in sales by men and sales by women. Which leads me to believe that female fans are interested in roughly the same characters as male fans. To stick with the Marvel example, I know a lot more women who are fans of Wolverine, Deadpool, Iron Man, Spider Man and so on than Emma Frost, Dazzler, Spider Woman and such. The former list is "what people like". The latter is "what people are rather indifferent about". It's the same list for male people as it is for female people. Why in the world would a studio say "hey, let's make a movie about a character people aren't that interested in instead of using our budget for a movie about a fan favorite"? WHY? Making superhero movies isn't about social justice, feminism or equality. It's about making money. Of course you push the characters people pay to see, regardless of their gender. DC happens to have a very popular female character, so they push Wonder Woman. If Phoenix or Storm, the more popular Marvel heroines, could compete with Iron Man and Wolverine the way Wonder Woman can keep up with Superman and Batman, Marvel would throw a Storm or Phoenix movie out in a heartbeat.
I think placing too much importance on comics is one reason some movies flop; the emphasis like for all genre movies must always be making a good movie. I don't think the fact that a demographic is not served already proves it wouldn't be a viable market. There have been successful 'feminist' movies, yet there is still claims the market 'won't like them'. Pure BS, obviously, the question is why is tradition so strong its overwhelming potential earnings.
40% of Avengers viewers were women. 44% of GotG viewers were women.
People say that "women don't read comic books" but even Marvel and DC don't track gendered market share well. The article quotes a Marvel exec as saying anecdotally that female readership keeps rising and they're marketing more and more comics to women. And, surprise surprise, when they market to women they make more money.
Here's an exhaustive article about women and comic book readership.
Movie makers budget far less for women-led superhero flicks than ones with men in the lead, then act surprised when no one likes their low-budget flicks showing off women in skimpy outfits. Daredevil had an $80 million dollar budget and Elektra had a $65 million dollar budget. Catwoman had a $100 million dollar budget and Batman Begins, a year later, got a $150 million dollar budget. I would list more but OH WAIT THERE ARE NO MORE.
Women have shown time and time again that they are willing to pay to see movies about heroic women. Fury Road has made almost $400 million dollars already. And despite all our clamoring and begging and waving fistfuls of dollars yelling TAKE MY MONEY, we get Ant-Man and Spider-Man. It's bull and it's bad business.
I do believe they're still mostly focused on a male audience, though I refuse to believe it's just the way things are and we can't change their minds. Take Ms. Marvel for instance, a relatively new character who's been a smash success. I hope the rumors I hear about a Kamala Khan movie are true.
Edit: And I wouldn't mind yet another Spider-Man movie if we could have one about Miles Morales. Now that he's getting his own comic line maybe there's a chance (way in the future. I think there are even fewer superhero movies with non-white leads than there are ones with women leads).
I really liked what @Amber_Scott said, and thanks very much for those links. Very useful information. i'd point out that, although they are planning a Wonder Woman movie for 2017, that has happened several times in the past and it has gotten canceled each time. I'll believe it when I am sitting in my seat on opening night, but not before. And if you have seen the new Super Girl TV preview, I shudder. It looks more like Sex and the City than Smallville, but that is merely my first impression. We will see.
Marvel has gone out of it's way to make a whole list of planned movies for the next 5 years or so. All are male leads or ensemble casts. And quite a lot of them are B-list at best, when there are already known quantities of A-list Female characters that get zero coverage. Black Widow is main stream and could absolutely pull in a crowd. Since they are doing Ant man, why not Janet Van dyne? Captain Marvel has been mentioned several teams. Over in the Xmen Universe, Jean Grey/Phoenix (not the horrible one they did in Xmen 3) could EASILY pull in a crowd. So could Mystique or Rogue. There are some big names in the comics that are female that absolutely should get a showing before Ant Man or some of the others that are in the works.
The mere fact that there are discussions here and other places, suggests that there is at least interest in a female lead movie, and one that isn't burdened with SIGNIFICANTLY reduced budget.
Black Widow is every bit as important an Avenger (in the MCU) as any other member of the team. She has more than adequately proven herself in Iron Man and Captain America movies as well as the Avengers movie. I don't pretend to know why the higher-ups at Marvel choose not to see that.