The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > General Movies > Marvel Films

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-06-2013, 08:28 PM   #151
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
 
DrCosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 5,952
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki882 View Post
You still haven't explained why Marvel can't make ANY female led movie (not just Carol) for the next five or six years. Why must all ten or twelve movies have a male lead?
They certainly can. I'm just looking for some reason other than being female. Wasp's shrinking story is better explored by Ant-Man. Scarlet Witch's magic motif is better explored by Dr. Strange. I haven't come up with an additional reason, and I think movies should be made primarily to entertain.

__________________
WW TV Show Ideas - X-Men TV Show Ideas -
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."
DrCosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2013, 08:43 PM   #152
Loki882
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,360
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
They certainly can. I'm just looking for some reason other than being female. Wasp's shrinking story is better explored by Ant-Man. Scarlet Witch's magic motif is better explored by Dr. Strange. I haven't come up with an additional reason, and I think movies should be made primarily to entertain.
Why is Ant Man automatically better at exploring shrinking than Wasp? Why is Doctor Strange better for exploring magic than Scarlet Witch? You makes those claims, but give no actual reasons or evidence to back it up.

Loki882 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2013, 09:05 PM   #153
TheJediBrah
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 222
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki882 View Post
Why is Ant Man automatically better at exploring shrinking than Wasp? Why is Doctor Strange better for exploring magic than Scarlet Witch? You makes those claims, but give no actual reasons or evidence to back it up.
Because they're women? It's harder to believe/enjoy superhero movies starring women, they won't make as much money and hence the studio isn't going to waste a slot that will make more profit with a male-centric film.

Pretty simple.

TheJediBrah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2013, 09:07 PM   #154
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
 
DrCosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 5,952
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Well, Dr. Strange has an extensive supporting cast and years of solo stories all dedicated to exploring a magical corner of the universe. Ant-Man's origin story stands on its own, without additional characters. I honestly thought these points were obvious.

__________________
WW TV Show Ideas - X-Men TV Show Ideas -
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."
DrCosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2013, 10:35 PM   #155
Chewy
REDACTED
 
Chewy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 13,016
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
Because they're women? It's harder to believe/enjoy superhero movies starring women, they won't make as much money and hence the studio isn't going to waste a slot that will make more profit with a male-centric film.

Pretty simple.
Well we'd have to see a female superhero movie before we can conclude they don't make as much money, wouldn't we?


(And don't bring up Elektra and Catwoman, those are two of the worst superhero movies. Possibly the two worst superhero movies)

Chewy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 01:33 AM   #156
blalex620
Comics, Books, Games
 
blalex620's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 753
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Evil View Post
I don't see Spiderman in Avengers 3. We'll see Ant Man, Guardians of the Galaxy, Doctor Strange, Black Panther (maybe), Falcon, War Machine, The Inhumans (maybe), Sif and the Warriors Three, Bucky (depending upon the end of CA:TWS) and whoever else may showup for the showdown against Thanos and his army.

Spiderman won't be one of them.
I highly, Highly doubt we'll see Falcon, War Machine, Sif and the Warriors Three, and Bucky in Avengers 3. Those are all supporting characters for their respective series and won't be showing up in an Avengers movie. Whedon's basically said that's why they didn't show up in Avengers and won't show up in Avengers 2. I doubt he'll change his mind for A3 when he has to add a lot more important characters to the story than supporting cast. And that doesn't negate Spider-Man showing up.

__________________
1) Man of Steel 2) Thor 2 3) The Wolverine 4) Pacific Rim 5) Iron Man 3 6) Oblivion 7) Mortal Instruments: City of Bones 8) Ender's Game 9) Beautiful Creatures 10) After Earth
blalex620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 01:39 AM   #157
TheJediBrah
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 222
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chewy View Post
Well we'd have to see a female superhero movie before we can conclude they don't make as much money, wouldn't we?


(And don't bring up Elektra and Catwoman, those are two of the worst superhero movies. Possibly the two worst superhero movies)
I'm just answering the question accurately.

And anyhow Elektra and Catwoman are perfect examples, for whatever reason they are female superheroes, and the movies sucked. You can claim it was a coincidence (I think it probably was) but the correlation is still there.

TheJediBrah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 01:57 AM   #158
Loki882
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,360
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
I'm just answering the question accurately.

And anyhow Elektra and Catwoman are perfect examples, for whatever reason they are female superheroes, and the movies sucked. You can claim it was a coincidence (I think it probably was) but the correlation is still there.
No, the correlation should be crappy movie+poor marketing=bomb. It has nothing to do with them being women, studios are stupid for thinking that. How is it that we can have dozens of MALE led superhero movies bomb, and hundreds if not thousands of male led actions movies, yet Hollywood never seems to conclude that there's no audience for them? By contrast, a couple of female ones do badly because they weren't good, and all of a sudden the GA won't support female action/superhero movies, I smell a double standard.

Loki882 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 06:40 AM   #159
xeno000
Raining hell from above
 
xeno000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Knowhere
Posts: 7,211
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki882 View Post
No, the correlation should be crappy movie+poor marketing=bomb. It has nothing to do with them being women, studios are stupid for thinking that. How is it that we can have dozens of MALE led superhero movies bomb, and hundreds if not thousands of male led actions movies, yet Hollywood never seems to conclude that there's no audience for them? By contrast, a couple of female ones do badly because they weren't good, and all of a sudden the GA won't support female action/superhero movies, I smell a double standard.

The typical attitude at studios is that if a few films in a genre fail, execs assume that the problem is the genre and not the quality of those particular films. The fact that Elektra and Catwoman were awful films that never should have been made is overlooked.


This is especially ridiculous when you consider the action films with female leads that have done well. The original Aliens series is the perfect case in point, with Sigourney Weaver's Ellen Ripley heading up one of the most intense -- and successful -- action franchises to date. Currently The Hunger Games is filling the action/adventure/scifi niche with a strong female lead. There have been other attempts, mostly from the YA/scifi angle, but the studios producing comic book movies haven't attempted to tap into that very lucrative market.


Marvel Studios has several female characters who could be transitioned to either lead solo films or team franchises. Ms. Marvel is the obvious possibility, but Black Widow might be given a shot if CATWS raises her profile enough. A few years ago Marvel even commissioned a BW script that wasn't produced, so she's been looked at as a lead. Peggy Carter seems to be under serious consideration for at least more One Shots or a retro TV show tied to Agents of SHIELD. Crystal and her sister Medusa are also strong females who would be at the forefront of an Inhumans film. After Doctor Strange is introduced The Defenders is an obvious team to develop. Perhaps the Valkyrie and her human alter ego will become prominent in that film as she was in the comic book.


Spider-Woman is unlikely because of Spider-Man. It's just too close for comfort. And She-Hulk probably isn't going to emerge from the comics, though Jennifer Walters might. Some characters are a bit too strange and/or derivative to make the transition in their original form.

xeno000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 07:25 AM   #160
TheJediBrah
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 222
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki882 View Post
No, the correlation should be crappy movie+poor marketing=bomb. It has nothing to do with them being women, studios are stupid for thinking that. How is it that we can have dozens of MALE led superhero movies bomb, and hundreds if not thousands of male led actions movies, yet Hollywood never seems to conclude that there's no audience for them? By contrast, a couple of female ones do badly because they weren't good, and all of a sudden the GA won't support female action/superhero movies, I smell a double standard.
Yes I'm sure you know better than them and all the different studios have no idea what they are doing.

Honestly I can't even think of a female superhero that I would bother seeing a film about. And much of the population is the same. It's not sexist, it's just the way it is. Deal with it.

TheJediBrah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 11:32 AM   #161
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
 
DrCosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 5,952
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by xeno000 View Post
The typical attitude at studios is that if a few films in a genre fail, execs assume that the problem is the genre and not the quality of those particular films. The fact that Elektra and Catwoman were awful films that never should have been made is overlooked.
The problem with a correlation is that you either have to call it all a coincidence or find the cause. After many attempts to make successful female action films, and only mild successes, it's not silly to see a pattern. Perhaps a better question to ask is: why do people keep making bad female action movies? Aeon Flux, Barb Wire, Tank Girl... even Supergirl from the Reeve days. Why? Coincidence? Can you convince someone that it's coincidence not worth mentioning? So well that they'll put down $150M? That this time it will just be different, that this movie will be good and successful unlike those... because all of those otherwise successful filmmakers and actresses who tried to make good movies were just incompetent? Or is there a cause that should be addressed?

Even with a good director and story and the great Angelina Jolie at the forefront movies like Salt and Tomb Raider, moderate success... but as soon as you add a male hero, you get runaway success like Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

Quote:
This is especially ridiculous when you consider the action films with female leads that have done well. The original Aliens series is the perfect case in point, with Sigourney Weaver's Ellen Ripley heading up one of the most intense -- and successful -- action franchises to date. Currently The Hunger Games is filling the action/adventure/scifi niche with a strong female lead. There have been other attempts, mostly from the YA/scifi angle, but the studios producing comic book movies haven't attempted to tap into that very lucrative market.
Hunger Games is based around a love story, and Alien is based around a horror storyline, two genres that have been popular with and for women since their inceptions... and both have very limited amounts of action, in which the heroine is not very capable (but very lucky and resourceful) during their first outing.

If you look at the successful female action properties you'll notice a few commonalities. Any successful ones are moderately successful, no runaway successes making $300M+, except for the film with a large built in audience - not just broad familiarity, but millions of young people who are currently spending money on the franchise whether the film comes out or not. A white hot adaptation doesn't disprove the correlation, it just gives one solution: if you adapt something a bunch of people are already buying, they will buy your movie too. Agreed.

Not only are they otherwise moderate successes, but the successful ones have a very strong male action hero presence or a team dynamic. That's why you can't use Terminator and Underworld to support a Captain Marvel film... unless you expect Mar-Vell to play as large a role as T800 and Hybrid Boy did. (Which, in Ms. Marvel's case, wouldn't at all be bad, would it?). Same with Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. And a slightly less Wolvie-centric cut of X-Men 1. You can have the female as the central character even if she's not the most powerful hero, even if she doesn't actually have the final fight, maybe only the finishing move. Is that what you guys would want from a Ms. Marvel film? Or a Scarlet Witch film? The male hero to take center stage at crucial points? Imagine if Pepper had single handedly taken out Stane IM3 style at the end of IM1... would Tony have felt like the hero? If not, then lets not use these franchises as examples of female-led action movies, since they are so very shared, like Mr. and Mrs. Smith, or even CATWS (for Black Widow).

Even these woman-badarse-on-a-team-that-slowly-disappears franchises, like Alien or Resident Evil, they have strong male action heroes, that are equal and sometimes superior to the female hero until the last third of the film. Hunger Games also gave Katniss a strong male team.

You'll also notice a lot of these successful female franchises have some stereotypically female motivation involved: a child to protect (or avenge?) or a romance that strongly influences their story and motivation.

And then you have to wonder why these low budget action-only female films like Ultraviolet and Kill Bill and Resident Evil are the most consistently successful female action films. Is it because the audience needed for success is small? Is this the route we'd want for a female superhero film? A $30M budget in an off-season release with action as the main focus and character as a minor event? Would we call that a successful superheroine movie? Is there a beloved character that that kind of film would adequately capture? Would people feel gipped or that Marvel was sexist for following this proven formula for making successful female action films?

These are not rhetorical questions, nor are they just for xeno.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
Yes I'm sure you know better than them and all the different studios have no idea what they are doing.

Honestly I can't even think of a female superhero that I would bother seeing a film about. And much of the population is the same. It's not sexist, it's just the way it is. Deal with it.
We live in a world of cause and effect. It's one thing to say the cause can't be changed, but nothing is 'just the way it is.' You don't find it strange that out of all the female heroes in the history of comicdom not *one* of them strikes your fancy? You don't think gender bias, a historical fact, has played any role in that whatsoever? That's is just... a coincidence?

__________________
WW TV Show Ideas - X-Men TV Show Ideas -
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."

Last edited by DrCosmic; 09-07-2013 at 11:46 AM.
DrCosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 01:52 PM   #162
Loki882
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,360
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJediBrah View Post
Yes I'm sure you know better than them and all the different studios have no idea what they are doing.

Honestly I can't even think of a female superhero that I would bother seeing a film about. And much of the population is the same. It's not sexist, it's just the way it is. Deal with it.
Yes, you're not sexist, but wouldn't even consider seeing a female superhero movie, Riight. Also, starting you're statement with "I'm not sexist" kind of proves that you are. Your a sexist and an *******, deal with it. Also, how many male led superhero movies have bombed, yet they keep making more, sorry your argument fails right there.

Loki882 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 01:58 PM   #163
Loki882
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,360
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
The problem with a correlation is that you either have to call it all a coincidence or find the cause. After many attempts to make successful female action films, and only mild successes, it's not silly to see a pattern. Perhaps a better question to ask is: why do people keep making bad female action movies? Aeon Flux, Barb Wire, Tank Girl... even Supergirl from the Reeve days. Why? Coincidence? Can you convince someone that it's coincidence not worth mentioning? So well that they'll put down $150M? That this time it will just be different, that this movie will be good and successful unlike those... because all of those otherwise successful filmmakers and actresses who tried to make good movies were just incompetent? Or is there a cause that should be addressed?

Even with a good director and story and the great Angelina Jolie at the forefront movies like Salt and Tomb Raider, moderate success... but as soon as you add a male hero, you get runaway success like Mr. and Mrs. Smith.



Hunger Games is based around a love story, and Alien is based around a horror storyline, two genres that have been popular with and for women since their inceptions... and both have very limited amounts of action, in which the heroine is not very capable (but very lucky and resourceful) during their first outing.

If you look at the successful female action properties you'll notice a few commonalities. Any successful ones are moderately successful, no runaway successes making $300M+, except for the film with a large built in audience - not just broad familiarity, but millions of young people who are currently spending money on the franchise whether the film comes out or not. A white hot adaptation doesn't disprove the correlation, it just gives one solution: if you adapt something a bunch of people are already buying, they will buy your movie too. Agreed.

Not only are they otherwise moderate successes, but the successful ones have a very strong male action hero presence or a team dynamic. That's why you can't use Terminator and Underworld to support a Captain Marvel film... unless you expect Mar-Vell to play as large a role as T800 and Hybrid Boy did. (Which, in Ms. Marvel's case, wouldn't at all be bad, would it?). Same with Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. And a slightly less Wolvie-centric cut of X-Men 1. You can have the female as the central character even if she's not the most powerful hero, even if she doesn't actually have the final fight, maybe only the finishing move. Is that what you guys would want from a Ms. Marvel film? Or a Scarlet Witch film? The male hero to take center stage at crucial points? Imagine if Pepper had single handedly taken out Stane IM3 style at the end of IM1... would Tony have felt like the hero? If not, then lets not use these franchises as examples of female-led action movies, since they are so very shared, like Mr. and Mrs. Smith, or even CATWS (for Black Widow).

Even these woman-badarse-on-a-team-that-slowly-disappears franchises, like Alien or Resident Evil, they have strong male action heroes, that are equal and sometimes superior to the female hero until the last third of the film. Hunger Games also gave Katniss a strong male team.

You'll also notice a lot of these successful female franchises have some stereotypically female motivation involved: a child to protect (or avenge?) or a romance that strongly influences their story and motivation.

And then you have to wonder why these low budget action-only female films like Ultraviolet and Kill Bill and Resident Evil are the most consistently successful female action films. Is it because the audience needed for success is small? Is this the route we'd want for a female superhero film? A $30M budget in an off-season release with action as the main focus and character as a minor event? Would we call that a successful superheroine movie? Is there a beloved character that that kind of film would adequately capture? Would people feel gipped or that Marvel was sexist for following this proven formula for making successful female action films?


We live in a world of cause and effect. It's one thing to say the cause can't be changed, but nothing is 'just the way it is.' You don't find it strange that out of all the female heroes in the history of comicdom not *one* of them strikes your fancy? You don't think gender bias, a historical fact, has played any role in that whatsoever? That's is just... a coincidence?
These are not rhetorical questions, nor are they just for xeno.
How many male led action movies have bombed, how many male led superhero movies have bombed, yet they keep making more. Your argument falls apart right there. If you use the cause and effect argument, then there should be no male superhero movies either. Sorry, don't buy that argument. also, Ripley and Katniss were plenty capable and THEY were the stars of those franchises, the males were clearly support. Also, THG is not simply a love story, to argue that is wrong.
There aren't many female action movies because studios REFUSE to make them, so a few bomb because they're bad, then they refuse to make more, then use those few to justify not making more, that's some grade A BS right there.

Loki882 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 02:36 PM   #164
childeroland
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,152
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?

__________________
That which is not Body, is no part of the Universe, and because the Universe is All, that which is not Body is Nothing and consequently Nowhere. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

You are the world you have created. And when you cease to exist, this world that you have created will also cease to exist. Cormac Mccarthy, The Counselor

If you shut your eyes to a frightening sight, you end up being frightened. If you look at it straight on, there is nothing to be afraid of.
Heigo Kurosawa, Akira's brother



childeroland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 03:04 PM   #165
Loki882
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,360
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by childeroland View Post
Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?
Exactly, you and I agree completely. That is the one argument that people on the other side cannot easily refute. You can't say that female action movies won't sell if you don't make many of them and don't put much effort into the one's that you do make.

Loki882 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 04:43 PM   #166
blalex620
Comics, Books, Games
 
blalex620's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 753
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

People (not you guys) cite Elektra and Catwoman as why females superhero movies won't do good but fail to realize those movies were just horrible and had no amount of care put into them at all. Jennifer Gardner has said she's ashamed of Elektra because she realized it was terribly made and Halle Berry accepted the Razzie for Catwoman herself. She knew the film was terrible too. And both of these actresses are great actresses.
Two female superheros movies were made that bombed. Green Lantern, Daredevil (the theatrical cut), Ghost Rider (#2 more than #1), Spider-Man 3, Batman and Robin were all terrible movies all male led but no one considers that because of their gender. These studios need to realize movies don't suck based on gender a majority of the time, they just suck.

Why is it WB have so much trouble getting a WW film or TV show made but can make a Flash TV show? I'd argue WW should be easy. An Amazonian princess placed in the real world in a fish outta water scenario who has superpowers and wants to be a hero. Seriously, what's so hard about that?

__________________
1) Man of Steel 2) Thor 2 3) The Wolverine 4) Pacific Rim 5) Iron Man 3 6) Oblivion 7) Mortal Instruments: City of Bones 8) Ender's Game 9) Beautiful Creatures 10) After Earth
blalex620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 07:06 PM   #167
Lord
All Mighty
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 12,907
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by childeroland View Post
Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?
Wow, let me quote that in my signature, one simple but difficult to refute statement

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by childeroland View Post
Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?
Lord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 08:02 PM   #168
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
 
DrCosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 5,952
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki882 View Post
These are not rhetorical questions, nor are they just for xeno.
How many male led action movies have bombed, how many male led superhero movies have bombed, yet they keep making more. Your argument falls apart right there. If you use the cause and effect argument, then there should be no male superhero movies either. Sorry, don't buy that argument. also, Ripley and Katniss were plenty capable and THEY were the stars of those franchises, the males were clearly support. Also, THG is not simply a love story, to argue that is wrong.
There aren't many female action movies because studios REFUSE to make them, so a few bomb because they're bad, then they refuse to make more, then use those few to justify not making more, that's some grade A BS right there.
My argument doesn't fall apart, because it's about correlation not cause and effect. Correlation means when one happens the other happens. When a female superhero movie happens, it is a bad movie. That's historically true. When a male superhero movie happens, it may be a bad movie, it may not be. So there's no correlation.

Studios don't refuse to make them. They make them, put good talent on them, and they suck. Unless someone figures out WHY they suck, there's no point in just trying again.

Katniss' arc is driven by her relationship with Peetah, and her mastery of that relationship serves as the context and empowerment to 'defeat' the Hunger Games. In the film, she was strong willed, but clearly no match for anyone in single combat. Ripley even worse so, her team beat Ash for her, and her crowning moment of awesome was firing a grappling hook, working controls. Resourceful underdog with strong vital life saving relationships with her supporting cast. Like Katniss. Like Selene. Like Sarah Connor. Not like a female superhero. These are the types of female action heroines that are popular, women who stand no chance of facing their foes one on one, who rely on their network, their relationships, to gain victory and then strike a final blow with their relatively modest combat abilities in what may be the film's only fight scene. Women who take no shame in having a man fight their battles for them, and wouldn't survive otherwise. The more powerful Ripley got, the worse and less popular her films were.

Again, this is the idea of correlation, when you see bad movies have X in common and successful ones have Y in common, you realize that Y is part of the picture, even if you don't know why, exactly.

Now if you want to go into Y, we can discuss that, but please at least address the argument before you dismiss it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by childeroland View Post
Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?
Because there are a lot of male led action films that succeed, some wildly so. In fact, it's a notable exception when a male led action film really bombs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki882 View Post
Exactly, you and I agree completely. That is the one argument that people on the other side cannot easily refute. You can't say that female action movies won't sell if you don't make many of them and don't put much effort into the one's that you do make.
Well, there are male action movies that don't get much effort and do sell. If you look at the first five to ten male action movies, some of them do very well, so you have some evidence to see they sell. For female action movies, this is not true, so you have to ask... how many times do you have to try in order to find one that sells? How much money are you going to throw down that hole that clearly doesn't sell as well as the male action movie?

As for effort... every single one was a passion project for both the director and the actress, so a lack of effort is not the issue. Perhaps you can say lack of money, and that's true, their budgets are lower than the modern male actioner. So are you saying that female action movies can only be successful with big budgets? Because this is not true of male action movies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by blalex620 View Post
People (not you guys) cite Elektra and Catwoman as why females superhero movies won't do good but fail to realize those movies were just horrible and had no amount of care put into them at all. Jennifer Gardner has said she's ashamed of Elektra because she realized it was terribly made and Halle Berry accepted the Razzie for Catwoman herself. She knew the film was terrible too. And both of these actresses are great actresses.
Two female superheros movies were made that bombed. Green Lantern, Daredevil (the theatrical cut), Ghost Rider (#2 more than #1), Spider-Man 3, Batman and Robin were all terrible movies all male led but no one considers that because of their gender. These studios need to realize movies don't suck based on gender a majority of the time, they just suck.

Why is it WB have so much trouble getting a WW film or TV show made but can make a Flash TV show? I'd argue WW should be easy. An Amazonian princess placed in the real world in a fish outta water scenario who has superpowers and wants to be a hero. Seriously, what's so hard about that?
Supergirl, Tank Girl, Aeon Flux... countless non-superhero female action movies. All bombed. They're not just looking at those two projects, those are just brought up most often because they were marketed well and made by solid directors and white hot actresses.

Now you're telling me when people look at the male superhero bombs and decide to make a male one anyway, it's not because of all of the successful male superhero movies... it's just cuz they're male, and the success of Spider-Man 1 and 2 don't figure into making another Spider-Man movie... it's just cuz he's a male?

If WW is "easy," (because if I can sum it up in a sentence, then it's easy to do well... rocket science, brain surgery... what's so hard about those?) then Flash is infinitely easier on every level, which means less time figuring out stuff and more time making it awesome.

__________________
WW TV Show Ideas - X-Men TV Show Ideas -
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."

Last edited by DrCosmic; 09-07-2013 at 08:17 PM.
DrCosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 08:32 PM   #169
TheJediBrah
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 222
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
We live in a world of cause and effect. It's one thing to say the cause can't be changed, but nothing is 'just the way it is.' You don't find it strange that out of all the female heroes in the history of comicdom not *one* of them strikes your fancy? You don't think gender bias, a historical fact, has played any role in that whatsoever? That's is just... a coincidence?
You need not take everything so literally. "just the way it is" doesn't literally mean "there is no reason", I just couldn't be bothered trying to explain why.

A large part could be gender bias, it wouldn't surprise me. I'm not sure why I'm ending up in an argument, I was just explaining the obvious reasons why the studio doesn't want to make female-led superhero movies so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki882 View Post
Yes, you're not sexist, but wouldn't even consider seeing a female superhero movie, Riight.
I didn't say that lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki882 View Post
Also, starting you're statement with "I'm not sexist" kind of proves that you are. Your a sexist and an *******, deal with it. Also, how many male led superhero movies have bombed, yet they keep making more, sorry your argument fails right there.
*you're.

And what argument do you think I'm trying to make?

Go back and find someone else to have a pointless debate with, because trying to invent some issues with my post so that you can have some conflict is just sad and pathetic.

Or say something sensible and we can have a mature discussion. Your choice.

EDIT: After reading some your posts to other people it seems that you are just confused. I would advise in future for you to respond to what people actually are saying, and not what you anticipate people will say that you can argue with.


Last edited by TheJediBrah; 09-07-2013 at 08:37 PM.
TheJediBrah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 08:35 PM   #170
blalex620
Comics, Books, Games
 
blalex620's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 753
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
Supergirl, Tank Girl, Aeon Flux... countless non-superhero female action movies. All bombed. They're not just looking at those two projects, those are just brought up most often because they were marketed well and made by solid directors and white hot actresses.

Now you're telling me when people look at the male superhero bombs and decide to make a male one anyway, it's not because of all of the successful male superhero movies... it's just cuz they're male, and the success of Spider-Man 1 and 2 don't figure into making another Spider-Man movie... it's just cuz he's a male?

If WW is "easy," (because if I can sum it up in a sentence, then it's easy to do well... rocket science, brain surgery... what's so hard about those?) then Flash is infinitely easier on every level, which means less time figuring out stuff and more time making it awesome.
If WW is made and does good but WW two bombs, how likely are they to make a number 3 or even reboot the series in a few years? Not that likely if you ask me. Green Lantern bombed hard and yet, there's a good chance with all the rumors and speculation that we'll see a reboot of it. If that had been a female led movie that reboot probably wouldn't be happening.

And you just took what I said and dumbed it down to the lowest level. Of course it's not easy to make any superhero work on TV or film but there are male superhero movies that are harder to make than a female movie.

Wonder Woman: Amazonian princess who leaves her island to explore the outside world and decides to be a hero in a fish outta water story.

Green Lantern: An ace pilot who inherits powers based on will from a dying alien who crash landed to Earth who is a part of an intergalatic space police force.

Seriously, which one of those would be the easier sell. If Wonder Woman was a male her story would have been made. But because she's a woman for some reason it's so much harder to tell her story than someone like Green Lantern or Flash (who's story is arguably as easy to tell as WW) and definitely Aquaman's. WW is the easiest story to tell behind Batman and Superman for WB/DC yet they continue bulls***ing around claiming they haven't got the right script or it's so difficult to tell her story.

It's not that female superhero's have harder stories to tell, it's just these studios don't take the pitches given to them and they don't try to commission screenplays for them. A Spider-Woman spy/espionage superhero flick could be epic, a Ms Marvel cosmic movie could be great too, a WW film done right would blow a lot of other superhero films out the water.

All it takes is either WB or Marvel or hell even another studio adapting something not from the big two, to take a chance and make a great female hero movie and things could finally take off. But instead we have WB saying WW is hard and Marvel saying we don't have time right now instead of saying a female hero movie is a top priority of ours for Phase 3.

__________________
1) Man of Steel 2) Thor 2 3) The Wolverine 4) Pacific Rim 5) Iron Man 3 6) Oblivion 7) Mortal Instruments: City of Bones 8) Ender's Game 9) Beautiful Creatures 10) After Earth
blalex620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 08:54 PM   #171
TheJediBrah
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 222
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by blalex620 View Post
All it takes is either WB or Marvel or hell even another studio adapting something not from the big two, to take a chance and make a great female hero movie and things could finally take off. But instead we have WB saying WW is hard and Marvel saying we don't have time right now instead of saying a female hero movie is a top priority of ours for Phase 3.
That's just politics from the studios. I agree Wonder Woman would be easier to buy than Green Lantern, but the studios are just unwilling to take the risk.

TheJediBrah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 09:05 PM   #172
childeroland
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,152
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Quote:
Because there are a lot of male led action films that succeed, some wildly so.
Because a lot of them are made.
Quote:
In fact, it's a notable exception when a male led action film really bombs.
That isn't true, unless we're talking a different definition of really bombing. In the past few years alone, we've had John Carter, The Lone Ranger, Jack the Giant Slayer, Green Lantern, White House Down, XXX: State of the Union, R.I.P.D. (how many chances is that for Ryan Reynolds, now?), After Earth, Parker, arguably Killer Elite, arguably The Mechanic. Those plus the number of other similar films which at least disappointed expectations are almost more male-dominated action movies made than there are total big budget female-led action films in the past few years period.

__________________
That which is not Body, is no part of the Universe, and because the Universe is All, that which is not Body is Nothing and consequently Nowhere. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan

You are the world you have created. And when you cease to exist, this world that you have created will also cease to exist. Cormac Mccarthy, The Counselor

If you shut your eyes to a frightening sight, you end up being frightened. If you look at it straight on, there is nothing to be afraid of.
Heigo Kurosawa, Akira's brother



childeroland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 09:28 PM   #173
blalex620
Comics, Books, Games
 
blalex620's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 753
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

People overlook the good female action movies made in the past few years like Salt, Colombiana, Haywire, Hanna are the few I could think of off the top of my head. There hasn't even been as many bad female action movies as there have been male ones. Hell, they're even making a female expendables style film. The big two still worry that the superhero genre is still small enough that one or two bad films could ruin it and therefore won't take that risk.

__________________
1) Man of Steel 2) Thor 2 3) The Wolverine 4) Pacific Rim 5) Iron Man 3 6) Oblivion 7) Mortal Instruments: City of Bones 8) Ender's Game 9) Beautiful Creatures 10) After Earth
blalex620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 09:50 PM   #174
Loki882
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,360
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

Do you really want me to list the male action movies that have failed, because we'd be here for days and I still wouldn't come close to listing them all. The reason why more male action movies succeed is because A LOT of them are made, and some have real effort put into them. By contrast, the reason why only a certain number of female action movies have succeeded (and there are more than people think) is because very few of them are made, and fewer have actual effort put into them. So, it's a self-defeating attitude and that argument holds no water.

Loki882 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2013, 10:00 PM   #175
Red Mask
Human Killing Machine
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 10,063
Default Re: 7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

FYI: don't depend on Legendary Pictures to lead the way in producing a female-lead film.

http://www.themarysue.com/legendary-...he-red-reaper/

So we'll have to depend on fans to make their own fan films for now.

__________________
The swordsmanship's first achievement is the unity of man and sword. Once this unity is attained even a blade of grass can be a weapon.

The second achievement is when the sword exists in one's heart. When absent from one's hand one can strike an enemy at paces
even with bare hands.

Swordsmanship's ultimate achievement is the absence of the sword in both hand and heart. The swordsman is at peace with the rest of the world. He vows not to kill.
Red Mask is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.