7 films for Phase 3 What Will the be?

[DrCosmic]

Ms. Marvel, Black Panther, and Dr. Strange all have more compelling storylines than Superman and Green Lantern. But those characters had films made anyway.

I love Marvel too, but lets not get silly.

 

[Red Mask]

They didn't let the failure of the female actor-led Golden Compass from trying again and eventually came up with Hunger Games.

The Golden Compass was produced by Newline Cinema. The Hunger Games are being produced by Lionsgate. Not all companies will make the same decisions or delve into the same genres. Even Legendary, which produced Man of Steel, Nolan's Batman films, Pacific Rim, are unwilling to do a superheroine film after their Sucker Punch flopped.

Who knows what will fail in the meantime and what will hit until the films are tried? And there were failures between SII and Burton-Batman also, as happens between hits in different genres. If studios had stopped at a few, they never would have gotten to Burton. A large number of male-led action films get the chance to fail, but for the genre those failures are offset by the successes. Why would it not be the same for female-led actioners, which also have successes to offset the failures?

The studios don't know how to market female-lead actions films. It's still a new genre for them. As far back as the 1970's it only became 'permissible' to see women get angry in action stories.

Alien may be built on Final Girl horror but it is still an action science fiction flick led by a female action hero character. Hunger Games wasn't built on the Final Girl; neither was Salt or Hanna. And, God, how many horror flops of that type must there have been before Scott's film? Anyway, no matter how many there were, eventually they got to Alien

James Cameron turned the Alien franchise to action, but the premise of it has always been the horror and suspense from the Aliens attacking. As Ripley found more effective ways to fight back they no longer became scary. That's when they started to lose their potential.

If the audience realized you can take out Lex Luthor with a gun he'd no longer appear untouchable by his genius. They'd demand more superpowered villains like Zodd or even Metallo (snort snort)

Outside of Whedon and Cameron, I haven't heard about any directors who want to do a female actioner. Or about Refn wanting to do one aside from Wonder Woman.

Karyne Kusama directed Aeon Flux and Girlfight. Anything else is either a foreign film or an independent.

 

[Red Mask]

I love Marvel too, but lets not get silly.

The Modern Day Jesus and Lottery Ticket winner? Yeah, that's sure beats the back story of the three Marvel heroes.

 

[KangConquers]

Ms. Marvel, Black Panther, and Dr. Strange all have more compelling storylines than Superman and Green Lantern. But those characters had films made anyway.

Personally bias aside, I think you're missing my point. I feel like the other characters you mentioned have clear mission statements behind their character. They have a set mission statement: who they are, who their enemies are, what their powers are, who their love interests are etc. These franchises are largely self-contained, and don't hinge on borrowing other major heroes villains/ supporting cast.

The simple fact is, when trying to make a movie for a character that has kind of poorly defined powers, no classic stories, and no clearly defined inherent and exclusive supporting cast, you really don't have a strong basis for a film adaptation.

Putting Ms. Marvel in a film where she fights M.O.D.O.K. just to say they did a female superhero film is weak. I guess I'd prefer something with some thematic resonance. Say how Black Panther and Ulysses Klaw's blood feud has a well-defined, instantly recognizable western imperialism theme.

I'm just not sure what you could do for Ms. Marvel now that the Guardians of the Galaxy co-opted a lot of Mar-Vell's story elements that could work specifically for that character. Maybe they can make an effort to make her clearly their Wonder Woman.

I'm almost tempted to say the best way to handle her is to make Mar-Vell female, with the Earthling alias of Carol Danvers, but I know that would cause almost as much fanboy rage as the Mandarin.

 

[KangConquers]

I love Marvel too, but lets not get silly.

Yeah. Superman's story is basically the Modern American myth of Hercules. I'm not sure if we can put Marvel characters that aren't even in said company's top 10 in the same breath.

 

[Chewy]

I'm almost tempted to say the best way to handle her is to make Mar-Vell female, with the Earthling alias of Carol Danvers, but I know that would cause almost as much fanboy rage as the Mandarin.

Who cares about fanboy outrage; I'd watch that. I think I suggested something sorta similar a while ago- use a female Mar-Vell in place of Phyla in a Guardians sequel

I think Mar-Vell has a similar problem to the one you all are talking about Carol having. There's nothing too distinct about him. There's nothing that you could do in a Mar-Vell film that you couldn't do in a Guardians film. Since Mar-Vell's death Adam Warlock has clearly established himself as Thanos' archenemy, which leaves Mar-Vell as famous for dying and having a lot of successors but not much else

 

[DrCosmic]

Why would one think it wouldn't, especially given that the ratio is at least fairly decent already, compared to that for male-led action films? Good box office can almost never be guaranteed, and studios might want to keep making the films if they think they'll eventually profit. And it's not like they haven't already had recent hits like Hunger Games and Salt. Why would they stop looking for the next one of that type, when it's proven a potential audience for them exists? And it's not like they don't try something repeatedly anyway -- look at the number of times they tried to at least develop modern biblical films after Gibson's Passion. Then History Channel came up with their Bible miniseries, and now Hollywood's rushing in with all sorts of similarly-themed projects. They didn't let the failure of the female actor-led Golden Compass from trying again and eventually came up with Hunger Games. Who knows what will fail in the meantime and what will hit until the films are tried? And there were failures between SII and Burton-Batman also, as happens between hits in different genres. If studios had stopped at a few, they never would have gotten to Burton. A large number of male-led action films get the chance to fail, but for the genre those failures are offset by the successes. Why would it not be the same for female-led actioners, which also have successes to offset the failures?

Alien may be built on Final Girl horror but it is still an action science fiction flick led by a female action hero character. Hunger Games wasn't built on the Final Girl; neither was Salt or Hanna. And, God, how many horror flops of that type must there have been before Scott's film? Anyway, no matter how many there were, eventually they got to Alien

Dredd flopped, but its failure wasn't blamed on Urban's gender, and both films were well-received. I would certainly disagree about 'Machete' and 'Transporter' not being well-made. Elektra was basically a distaff 'Daredevil' and Catwoman was a horrific mess, to put it mildly.

You don't seem to want to accept that massive initial success is a motivator and a model to push through failures. That's what the superhero genre had, and when they got back to the winning formula, they've continued to succeed. But imagine if there had been no Superman I and II, no massive success, do you think they would have kept making bad superhero movies over and over until... whenever? Do you think they would have known how to make Batman without Donner's Superman?

The ratio of good superheroine films is 0 to 6. It's not a good ratio, not at all comparable to the male superhero films ratio at any point in time. Anyone who treats 4/5 the same way as 0/6 is a fool. The ratio of good female action films is not comparable to good male action films at any point in history either.

And this is all underscored by how you classify Salt as a "hit" on the level of Hunger Games. Salt was a modest success. This was a movie with a great director, a great actress a great story and the public's reaction: not even $300M. The same one would get for an "okay" male action film. That's not an enticing prize for a studio. The potential audience, such as it is, is small, not enough for the type of investment a superhero movie provides.

In its heyday, Xena had nearly 8 million viewers in just the U.S. Alias had about 10 million. Smaller audience, but still pretty decent-sized and equal if not better than audiences for Arrow, Smallville, and Supernatural.

I don't know if there's a high demand for these films or not, but outside of the fanboy/girl community, was there a high demand for Iron Man (from the general audience) before it came out? Or did Marvel go out and make the general audience just by making and marketing a good film? Tomb Raider managed to hit whether or not there was a demand outside the video game crowd.

Yes these shows, when they're at their best have a larger audience than CW television shows... concepts that don't get to be movies, because the demand for them isn't large. So yes, these properties have a larger demand than other things that don't have a large enough demand for a big blockbuster film.

As you know, there is rarely a demand for specific names of characters, but always a demand for certain character attributes or types. That's why we're talking about demand for female superheroes instead of demand for Ms. Marvel, Scarlet Witch, Wasp, She-Hulk, Spider-Woman. So while there was no demand for any individual superhero in the MCU, there was a demand for male superheroes. There was a demand for gadget using superheroes. There was a demand for genius scientists, smart-aleck playboys, millionaire philanthropists, Robert Downey Jr. characters, and pretty much every attribute of Tony Stark has been proven to be desired and popular in a variety of genres and situations. And few of these were available in a superhero franchise when it was released, making it desirable and unique.

And you use Tomb Raider, another modest success (though slightly better than Salt) and compare it to Iron Man, a wild success that sparked a mega-franchise... as planned.

Outside of Whedon and Cameron, I haven't heard about any directors who want to do a female actioner. Or about Refn wanting to do one aside from Wonder Woman. But Philip Noyce wanted to do Salt II at one time, they're supposedly rebooting Lara Croft, Neil Burger's got Divergent coming up, Marvel is at least making noise about a Ms. Marvel film, and how fast did it take Lionsgate or Color Force to snag Francis Lawrence for Catching Fire and Mockingjay? And after Lynne Ramsey dropped out of Jane Got a Gun, they got Gavin O'Connor pretty quick.

I meant a good director. Noyce, Berger and Lawrence qualify. It's interesting to note that having a strong female character driven book series seems to enable studios to get quality directors (of which Ramsey and O'Connor do not seem to be), to buy in. I think it's worth noting that these book-based films, while they have action in them, are not really action films. Their action is very limited.

It's interesting that Noyce is someone who has spoken idly about doing a female action film, but never would have if he had not been connected with Angelina Jolie at that particular moment, as it was originally a Tom Cruise vehicle.

 

[DrCosmic]

The Modern Day Jesus and Lottery Ticket winner? Yeah, that's sure beats the back story of the three Marvel heroes.

Summing these complex beloved longstanding oft-adapted multi-book characters with award winning stories up in derogatory terms does what to prove three ill-explored oft-without-books characters have more compelling stories? You don't like them, cool, but there's a reason so many superheroes become Messiahs and win the lottery for their powers. How committed are you to being obtuse about this?

I'm almost tempted to say the best way to handle her is to make Mar-Vell female, with the Earthling alias of Carol Danvers, but I know that would cause almost as much fanboy rage as the Mandarin.

Probably... I think the Mar-Vell dying on her angle gives the character a lot of her identity, and that transfers into making her story and film interesting and unique. I wouldn't want to lose that. I do see what you mean about theme... I like Kree genetic experimentation is a great theme that unites her with a wild and easily explorable world of villains. You pull her back from the cosmos, making her an Earth cop, so to speak, with SHIELD. Could potentially overlap thematically with the Agents of SHIELD TV series a bit, but that can be a good thing, really.

 

[KangConquers]

Who cares about fanboy outrage; I'd watch that. I think I suggested something sorta similar a while ago- use a female Mar-Vell in place of Phyla in a Guardians sequel

I think Mar-Vell has a similar problem to the one you all are talking about Carol having. There's nothing too distinct about him. There's nothing that you could do in a Mar-Vell film that you couldn't do in a Guardians film. Since Mar-Vell's death Adam Warlock has clearly established himself as Thanos' archenemy, which leaves Mar-Vell as famous for dying and having a lot of successors but not much else

I think Mar-Vell has a kind of cool back story with Yon-Ron. A gender swap could turn that into a commentary on sexism, a superior officer holding down or trying to sabotage a female subordinate, and give the story a little more edge. Additionally, having a famous, reknown female alien save an Earthling male would serve as a similar reversal of the typical male/female relationships in comics as Wonder Woman and Steve Trevor vs. having Carol become a side-kick adjunct, who's "Batman" eventually dies.

But I agree that Guardians of the Galaxy has kind of ****-canned not just Carol, but Mar-Vell a bit, and finding a unique angle for her is very difficult and will take some effort. The Guardians already have both an Earth born pilot who gains alien powers and a bad ass space amazon. Cosmic Marvel is basically 10-20 protagonists sharing the same setting, supporting characters, foes etc.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's certainly not having Carol trot around with 20 baby MODOKs.

 

[childeroland]

You don't seem to want to accept that massive initial success is a motivator and a model to push through failures. That's what the superhero genre had, and when they got back to the winning formula, they've continued to succeed. But imagine if there had been no Superman I and II, no massive success, do you think they would have kept making bad superhero movies over and over until... whenever? Do you think they would have known how to make Batman without Donner's Superman?

But not all genres start with a massive success. The science fiction and western genres consisted of a long history of modest successes and flops before the bigger ones started coming along (admittedly in a different era). And since there has been an eventual success in a female-led action film, however long it took to come, the studios might naturally want to get more of them, now that we're here. If they eventually get to a good place, so what?

The ratio of good superheroine films is 0 to 6. It's not a good ratio, not at all comparable to the male superhero films ratio at any point in time. Anyone who treats 4/5 the same way as 0/6 is a fool. The ratio of good female action films is not comparable to good male action films at any point in history either.

Is it? In the superheroine genre, sure. But between '80 (Superman II) and '89, how many good films in the genre were made, compared to how many were actually good. (And that includes the unwatchable Supergirl). And two of those were Superman films, III and IV. Female-led films in the genre during that period got one chance to fail (Supergirl -- unless I'm missing another film) and male-led films got what, nine?

And this is all underscored by how you classify Salt as a "hit" on the level of Hunger Games. Salt was a modest success. This was a movie with a great director, a great actress a great story and the public's reaction: not even $300M. The same one would get for an "okay" male action film. That's not an enticing prize for a studio. The potential audience, such as it is, is small, not enough for the type of investment a superhero movie provides.

But it was still a success, enough so that the studio is developing a sequel. It did better than the first two Transporter films, Enemy of the State, Looper, Eagle Eye, Machete, and was better than Bourne Identity (not considered an "okay" success) worldwide. Lara Croft and the first Charlie's Angels did better also. Not ginormous numbers, but respectable. I agree it might not be enough to entice studios to invest in a Wonder Woman, but a non-superhero female action film?

Yes these shows, when they're at their best have a larger audience than CW television shows... concepts that don't get to be movies, because the demand for them isn't large. So yes, these properties have a larger demand than other things that don't have a large enough demand for a big blockbuster film.

As you know, there is rarely a demand for specific names of characters, but always a demand for certain character attributes or types. That's why we're talking about demand for female superheroes instead of demand for Ms. Marvel, Scarlet Witch, Wasp, She-Hulk, Spider-Woman. So while there was no demand for any individual superhero in the MCU, there was a demand for male superheroes. There was a demand for gadget using superheroes. There was a demand for genius scientists, smart-aleck playboys, millionaire philanthropists, Robert Downey Jr. characters, and pretty much every attribute of Tony Stark has been proven to be desired and popular in a variety of genres and situations. And few of these were available in a superhero franchise when it was released, making it desirable and unique.

And you use Tomb Raider, another modest success (though slightly better than Salt) and compare it to Iron Man, a wild success that sparked a mega-franchise... as planned.

RDJ wasn't in big demand by audiences before Iron Man. Iron Man was his comeback. (Zodiac, Charlie Bartlett, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Shaggy Dog, Scanner Darkly didn't do great box office, and Good Night and Good Luck might have done well regardless of who played his role.) And a number of movies (don't know if it's a lot or not) have been made with one or more of those attributes that haven't done well. The demand wasn't guaranteed (or as guaranteed as these things can get), but Marvel plunged ahead anyway. As they did with Norton's Hulk (not a huge hit, but did okay), despite the disappointment of Ang Lee's film.

I meant a good director. Noyce, Berger and Lawrence qualify. It's interesting to note that having a strong female character driven book series seems to enable studios to get quality directors (of which Ramsey and O'Connor do not seem to be), to buy in. I think it's worth noting that these book-based films, while they have action in them, are not really action films. Their action is very limited.

It's interesting that Noyce is someone who has spoken idly about doing a female action film, but never would have if he had not been connected with Angelina Jolie at that particular moment, as it was originally a Tom Cruise vehicle.

Heck, it takes all kinds. Maybe the female Expendables movie will start to change that.

 

[DrCosmic]

But not all genres start with a massive success. The science fiction and western genres consisted of a long history of modest successes and flops before the bigger ones started coming along (admittedly in a different era). And since there has been an eventual success in a female-led action film, however long it took to come, the studios might naturally want to get more of them, now that we're here. If they eventually get to a good place, so what?

Is it? In the superheroine genre, sure. But between '80 (Superman II) and '89, how many good films in the genre were made, compared to how many were actually good. (And that includes the unwatchable Supergirl). And two of those were Superman films, III and IV. Female-led films in the genre during that period got one chance to fail (Supergirl -- unless I'm missing another film) and male-led films got what, nine?

So? 4 good films, 3 of which are wild successes is undeniable proof that something works. Any subsequent failures, logically, have to fall on those failures, it can't be that these films don't sell, because in history they've sold amazingly well. Now if there is no runaway success, or worse, if there are only mild successes despite incredible efforts, then something is wrong. It would be foolish to put great efforts into it again and expect any better results without figuring out what's going on.

The studios may want to get more of them, if their goal is a film that grosses $300M. If they want to make action movies that gross more, they either need to figure out the problem or make something else.


The Western genre started with the much lauded Great Train Robbery and Science Fiction began by adapting such classics as Frankenstein and 20K Leagues Under the Sea... there weren't enough films per year to fail or flop when these genres began. They did not have the challenges that the superhero genre or even the modern horror genre has had.

But it was still a success, enough so that the studio is developing a sequel. It did better than the first two Transporter films, Enemy of the State, Looper, Eagle Eye, Machete, and was better than Bourne Identity (not considered an "okay" success) worldwide. Lara Croft and the first Charlie's Angels did better also. Not ginormous numbers, but respectable. I agree it might not be enough to entice studios to invest in a Wonder Woman, but a non-superhero female action film?

And occasionally they do try, and they keep learning things that don't work with female action films. The studio is considering a sequel to Salt - one that neither the director or actress are interested in, so success is unlikely - but when the next studio is trying to decide: do I want to make a male spy flick like Mission Impossible or a female spy flick like Salt... what do you think they're going to choose? Merely respectable numbers after A+ effort is not enticing, and does not show that the audience is strong, quite the opposite.

RDJ wasn't in big demand by audiences before Iron Man. Iron Man was his comeback. (Zodiac, Charlie Bartlett, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Shaggy Dog, Scanner Darkly didn't do great box office, and Good Night and Good Luck might have done well regardless of who played his role.) And a number of movies (don't know if it's a lot or not) have been made with one or more of those attributes that haven't done well. The demand wasn't guaranteed (or as guaranteed as these things can get), but Marvel plunged ahead anyway. As they did with Norton's Hulk (not a huge hit, but did okay), despite the disappointment of Ang Lee's film.

Nothing is guaranteed. All you have are trends, and we make decisions based on them. You get in your car not because it's guaranteed to work, but because you know it's worked in the past and are know that unless something changes, it will continue to work. Even if you lived in a Mad Max world, where broken cars were suddenly the norm, you know from experience that cars work, so if you can get one, you will, even though it's not guaranteed to work.

They learned from Norton's Hulk, that something was wrong with the way Hulk movies are received, so they stopped making them until they figure out how to overcome the problem that locks Hulk at that same $300M mark that female action movies are stuck at. A smart person would do the same for female action movies.

Heck, it takes all kinds. Maybe the female Expendables movie will start to change that.

If they ever make it. I'm not optimistic that they will make it or that it will be any better than Haywire. The rugged oddball charm of Expendables doesn't wear as well on young female actresses, imho.

 

[Red Mask]

Yeah. Superman's story is basically the Modern American myth of Hercules. I'm not sure if we can put Marvel characters that aren't even in said company's top 10 in the same breath.

Marvel's characters are much closer to the modern myth. However, I don't think many superheroes today can clearly be attributed to the many celebrities of the modern age. It's been more an age of reason than fantasy, where empires are obsolete and human rights a growing idea.

The first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, wasn't predestined to be the first man in space. Guys like Gandhi and Martin Luther King preach modern values that still aren't concrete today. They're more pro-peace than violent action. The Black Panther can't espouse their ideals and commit violence at the same time. Tony Stark is comparable to Howard Hughes + Errol Flynn, but those men shine brighter in real life. (Although Tony Stark is comparable to the mythic Daedulus.) Today anybody can traverse the World at new record speeds. Houdini is a legend, but he didn't claim his feats were magical. He spent many years disproving seances.

 

[childeroland]

So? 4 good films, 3 of which are wild successes is undeniable proof that something works. Any subsequent failures, logically, have to fall on those failures, it can't be that these films don't sell, because in history they've sold amazingly well. Now if there is no runaway success, or worse, if there are only mild successes despite incredible efforts, then something is wrong. It would be foolish to put great efforts into it again and expect any better results without figuring out what's going on.

The studios may want to get more of them, if their goal is a film that grosses $300M. If they want to make action movies that gross more, they either need to figure out the problem or make something else.

One could say the same of the female-led films that have worked. The ones I mentioned are on par box office-wise with Superman III and II, even when you adjust for inflation. If Superman II is a wild success at 108 million (301 when adjusted for inflation) and III is at 59 (138 adjusted) why isn't Salt at 293 million? But yes, if they want better numbers they do have to learn to make them better. Though on average the ones that do do well at least do as well as your average action film success -- Charlie's Angels' 264 mill vs. Bourne Supremacy's 288 mill. Salt vs. Bourne Identity. Lara Croft's 274 vs. the first F&F film's 207 mill and the Expendables 274 mill. Jason Statham's non-Expendables films gross far less, but are generally considered decent successes. No one expects those to do enormous numbers, yet he's headlining Simon West's Heat for, I guess, next year? (Well, that's a crime film, but maybe it'll be an action film also.)

They are apparently making that Expendebelles (as they're calling it) film. Supposedly, that girl from You're Next just got cast or attached to it.

They apparently are still working on Salt II, having hired a screenwriter late last year, though I admit the enthusiasm doesn't seem to be there.

 

[Red Mask]

Personally bias aside, I think you're missing my point. I feel like the other characters you mentioned have clear mission statements behind their character. They have a set mission statement: who they are, who their enemies are, what their powers are, who their love interests are etc. These franchises are largely self-contained, and don't hinge on borrowing other major heroes villains/ supporting cast.

The simple fact is, when trying to make a movie for a character that has kind of poorly defined powers, no classic stories, and no clearly defined inherent and exclusive supporting cast, you really don't have a strong basis for a film adaptation.

This is why writers need to think outside the box and rewrite some of the characters. No matter what fans think the past few years haven't been good by staying completely true to the comics.

Carol Danvers has a mission statement now, thanks to Kelly Sue Deconnick. She wants to prove she can do it because everybody says she can't. It's modern and inspiring, especially for women. No matter how many times she's gone down she gets back up. She's not about chasing monsters or mad scientists. She's fighting the good fight because everybody says she couldn't.

 

[Red Mask]

I forgot to mention that the late Tony Scott did direct "Domino" starring Kiera Knightley. "Brave" was written and directed by Brenda Chapman and then replaced by Mark Andrews. Neil Marshall wrote and directed "The Descent" and "Doomsday".

 

[cherokeesam]

Who cares about fanboy outrage; I'd watch that. I think I suggested something sorta similar a while ago- use a female Mar-Vell in place of Phyla in a Guardians sequel

I think Mar-Vell has a similar problem to the one you all are talking about Carol having. There's nothing too distinct about him. There's nothing that you could do in a Mar-Vell film that you couldn't do in a Guardians film.

Screw that --- I'm tired of those stupid owls and their stupid World of Warcraft fantasies.

Nah, but seriously though, that's cool and all. I agree that all the myriad Captain Marvels (Carol, Mar-Vell, Phyla, Genis, Monica, et al) are pretty much interchangeable in their roles, so it really serves no purpose to introduce an alien superhero who mentors an earthling padawan to become that selfsame alien superhero; and, in fact, invites way too many unwanted comparisons and confusion with DC characters (i.e., the real Captain Marvel, as well as various Green Lanterns).

Just cut to the chase and make Ms. Mar-Vell/ Kar-Ul Dan-Varrz a frickin' Kree captain and be done with it.

 

[DrCosmic]

One could say the same of the female-led films that have worked. The ones I mentioned are on par box office-wise with Superman III and II, even when you adjust for inflation. If Superman II is a wild success at 108 million (301 when adjusted for inflation) and III is at 59 (138 adjusted) why isn't Salt at 293 million? But yes, if they want better numbers they do have to learn to make them better. Though on average the ones that do do well at least do as well as your average action film success -- Charlie's Angels' 264 mill vs. Bourne Supremacy's 288 mill. Salt vs. Bourne Identity. Lara Croft's 274 vs. the first F&F film's 207 mill and the Expendables 274 mill. Jason Statham's non-Expendables films gross far less, but are generally considered decent successes. No one expects those to do enormous numbers, yet he's headlining Simon West's Heat for, I guess, next year? (Well, that's a crime film, but maybe it'll be an action film also.)

They are apparently making that Expendebelles (as they're calling it) film. Supposedly, that girl from You're Next just got cast or attached to it.

They apparently are still working on Salt II, having hired a screenwriter late last year, though I admit the enthusiasm doesn't seem to be there.

Where did I (or anyone ever) say SIII was a wild success? Quote me, if need be.

You're adjusting for inflation but not for the market. Superman and Superman II were on par with the Warriors, Mad Max, they were the biggest movies of the day. A smaller sample of the population was watching movies back then. So, Salt isn't considered a wild success at $300M because films with similar effort and quality in the modern era often make more money. Look at your comparison? The best female action movies with the average male action movie. That comparison, that unevenness, is the issue, and making the movie good and relatively successful doesn't fix it, because you would never compare Salt, which is just a plain old great movie, with Gladiator, another great movie. That would be silly, to compare a great female action movie with a great male action movie and draw conclusions.

What you describe with Jason Statham's career is much like what happens with Resident Evil... modest successes on cheap budgets lead to more modest successes on cheap budgets... except when they don't. The films you named that came close to that $300M ceiling, they got sequels, didn't they, except Salt because the director and actress aren't interested in returning, but what happened after the sequels? I genuinely want to know. Why did the sequels for those films were horrible, while sequels for the others didn't... except Expendables 2. That one did crash, and Stallone brought it back with star power. That's one advantage male actioners do have... they can have 80s action heroes in them.

 

[KangConquers]

This is why writers need to think outside the box and rewrite some of the characters. No matter what fans think the past few years haven't been good by staying completely true to the comics.

Carol Danvers has a mission statement now, thanks to Kelly Sue Deconnick. She wants to prove she can do it because everybody says she can't. It's modern and inspiring, especially for women. No matter how many times she's gone down she gets back up. She's not about chasing monsters or mad scientists. She's fighting the good fight because everybody says she couldn't.

That's true. This character basically spent 1977-2004 as the toilet bowl of the Marvel Universe. She saw so much ****. The 2005 solo run was kind of a bland Civil War tie in, but the new comic shows a lot of promise in terms of turning her into a permanent solo fixture.

 

[childeroland]

I (or anyone ever) said SIII was a wild success? Where, exactly? Quote me, if need be.

So? 4 good films, 3 of which are wild successes is undeniable proof that something works.

(I thought you meant the original Superman series here.)

I'd make the comparison, though it'd have to be very, very limited. Gladiator did 457 mill in the box office. Hunger Games did 691. The phenomenon is only recent -- female actioners doing this well is certainly not the general rule, and it took a long time to happen. One may need the best of them (box office-wise) to compare to the middling male actioner, but on average the total number of them still make almost as much as the total number of male actioners. Put the two side-by-side and, at least on Box Office Mojo, they average out to about the same, granting that some of the female actioners had strong male supporting characters. Action remakes (mostly male-led) average out to about 53-55 mill, action buddy comedies 63 mill. Action Heroines (three helped by male co-leads, admittedly) average out to about 55 mill. Take away the ones with male co-leads, and you still have maybe 49 mill on average. And that's with more male actioners made than female ones.

I don't know why Charlie's Angels 2 and Lara Croft 2 crashed. They just blew and audiences didn't want them. But Lara and Charlies were still proven to have worked at least once, and there are more recent successes like Hanna and Underworld: Awakening. And how much money is Catching Fire probably going to make?

 

[baerrtt]

(I thought you meant the original Superman series here.)

I'd make the comparison, though it'd have to be very, very limited. Gladiator did 457 mill in the box office. Hunger Games did 691. The phenomenon is only recent -- female actioners doing this well is certainly not the general rule, and it took a long time to happen. One may need the best of them (box office-wise) to compare to the middling male actioner, but on average the total number of them still make almost as much as the total number of male actioners. Put the two side-by-side and, at least on Box Office Mojo, they average out to about the same, granting that some of the female actioners had strong male supporting characters. Action remakes (mostly male-led) average out to about 53-55 mill, action buddy comedies 63 mill. Action Heroines (three helped by male co-leads, admittedly) average out to about 55 mill. Take away the ones with male co-leads, and you still have maybe 49 mill on average. And that's with more male actioners made than female ones.

I don't know why Charlie's Angels 2 and Lara Croft 2 crashed. They just blew and audiences didn't want them. But Lara and Charlies were still proven to have worked at least once, and there are more recent successes like Hanna and Underworld: Awakening. And how much money is Catching Fire probably going to make?

I think when movie execs look at the success of THE HUNGER GAMES all they see is further proof that bestselling YA novels(and as ever bestselling novels period) are a good successful source for adaptations. The fact that the protagonists are female isn't relevant.

Superhero comic books with female main characters do not, however, come with the same attractive reputation and all the bad superheroine movies we've seen are a partial result of directors adapting material that isn't as consistent, strong or as celebrated as the ones they're male counterparts have enjoyed. As Dr Cosmic says here fix the characters in the books first until they are more than either deriatives of male superheroes or fetish objects.

There's also the factor that studios now see a billion as the desired, shoot for number for major tentpole blockbusters and perhaps the reality that none of the hugely successfule female led movies internationally as well as domestically over the last five years(MAMMA MIA, any of the TWILIGHT films or THG to name a few) have performed to that level worldwide makes them believe that there is ultimately a ceiling to what a movie can do, success wise, around the planet when it's main face is female. As greedy as it sounds CATCHING FIRE could outgross IM 3 domestically but if it doesn't manage a billion worldwide all some execs would think is they are right to not pursue female actioners/genre pieces because in some shape or form there is a financial ceiling.

 

[childeroland]

But that only means billion dollar blockbusters. Which most actioners wont reach no matter who leads them. Statham may continue to lead films without having to make that and if comic book heroines have to be fixed first in the source material, so be it. No matter where they come from, at least studios should at least consider that female can lead an action success and not totally dismiss the idea, and its not like most blockbusters these days arent adaptations of some sort anyway.

 

[cherokeesam]

I think when movie execs look at the success of THE HUNGER GAMES all they see is further proof that bestselling YA novels(and as ever bestselling novels period) are a good successful source for adaptations. The fact that the protagonists are female isn't relevant.

Superhero comic books with female main characters do not, however, come with the same attractive reputation and all the bad superheroine movies we've seen are a partial result of directors adapting material that isn't as consistent, strong or as celebrated as the ones they're male counterparts have enjoyed. As Dr Cosmic says here fix the characters in the books first until they are more than either deriatives of male superheroes or fetish objects.

There's also the factor that studios now see a billion as the desired, shoot for number for major tentpole blockbusters and perhaps the reality that none of the hugely successfule female led movies internationally as well as domestically over the last five years(MAMMA MIA, any of the TWILIGHT films or THG to name a few) have performed to that level worldwide makes them believe that there is ultimately a ceiling to what a movie can do, success wise, around the planet when it's main face is female. As greedy as it sounds CATCHING FIRE could outgross IM 3 domestically but if it doesn't manage a billion worldwide all some execs would think is they are right to not pursue female actioners/genre pieces because in some shape or form there is a financial ceiling.

Good points; but I think the fact that the Twilight/Hunger Games protagonists are female IS relevant. Those YA novels you're talking about appeal almost exclusively to the rabid tween girl crowd, and the reason they work is because they're about young, strong female leads who are pretty much the object of affection for every young, strong male character in those books. Reverse the genders in Twilight and Hunger Games, and those books would be just footnotes to history, gathering dust on shelves in libraries. (They still have those, don't they....?)

That being said, that would probably be the ideal scenario for creating an actual blockbuster for a superheroine movie. A Ms. Marvel or Wonder Woman movie played straight would just be Superman with boobs....i.e., a female heroine in a traditionally male storyline. The box office appeal just isn't there. Not even for the imaginary horny fanboy demographic --- the failure of movies like Aeon Flux and Elektra and Barb Wire prove indisputably that it takes more than a hottie in a skimpy superheroine costume to attract a CBM audience.

On that note, and to attract the considerable box office power of tween-age girls, I think Marvel, Warners, and even Fox would be better suited to making movies based on their teen ensemble groups than on trying to headline an older superheroine title. Something like Teen Titans, Young Justice, Young Avengers, Runaways, New Mutants, or even X-Statix instead of Ms. Marvel, Wonder Woman, She-Hulk, Emma Frost, Elektra, etc.

 

[baerrtt]

But that only means billion dollar blockbusters. Which most actioners wont reach no matter who leads them. Statham may continue to lead films without having to make that and if comic book heroines have to be fixed first in the source material, so be it. No matter where they come from, at least studios know a female can lead an action success, and its not like most blockbusters these days arent adaptations of some sort anyway.

Studios know that female led films in any genre can still make money it's just that for the longest time now the success stories have been written off as flukes largely because of the inherent belief that the male led stuff can potentially gross more(and has). Statham's stuff is, in some shape or form, profitable and the point is that people wouldn't respond to some of those cheap looking no frills flicks quite as readily if you stuck a woman as the lead. HAYWIRE had a great director, promotion and probably better reviews than any of Jason's pictures have had put together yet it bombed.

 

[Dasher10]

That's true. This character basically spent 1977-2004 as the toilet bowl of the Marvel Universe. She saw so much ****. The 2005 solo run was kind of a bland Civil War tie in, but the new comic shows a lot of promise in terms of turning her into a permanent solo fixture.

Actually, Brian Reed's solo run lasted for 50 issues until he got hired for 343 Studios. It was a bigger hit than you think.

 

[childeroland]

@baerrtt. That's true, unfortunately. Theyre gonna have to find a way around that more consistently than they have so far to make it work better.