Feige: "more than half of [heroes] will be women."

[TheFlamingCoco]

Like the US population, amiright?

 

[Abudefduf]

or are fairly obscure for non-comic buffs (e.g. Spectrum, America Chavez, Mockingbird, Quake etc).

I get what you're saying but this is not a valid excuse. Up until a few years ago very few people knew who Winter Soldier, Shuri, Groot, Rocket Raccoon, Star-Lord etc. were... now they're household names. Look, I'm not arguing that Marvel should have made a Tigra solo movie, but they could've at least used some of these lesser-known heroines in supporting roles. But they didn't.

 

[Dasher10]

Sounds like the X-Men are returning home and Marvel are getting most of their A and B list female heroes back. Storm, Rogue, Domino, Psylocke, Emma Frost, Shadowcat, Jean Grey, Jubilee, Siryn, Polaris, Magik and Pixie are all returning.

 

[Lobo]

I really want an Elsa Bloodstone movie.

 

[DACrowe]

But how do you know they're NOT putting character first? Why is the assumption that they are catering to feminists, as opposed to introducing a bunch of awesome characters who happen to be female? Further, if the plan is to introduce a lot of female heroes, what do you want Feige to say? Nothing?

Indeed, is appealing to a feminist reading any different than appealing to a fan reading? Or rather fan service, which the Marvel Studios movies are shameless about? (How many sites run "easter egg" guides?). Yet the idea of appealing to inclusivity and diversity always causes fans to low-key get very uptight and defensive.

For the record, as another poster pointed out, recent blockbusters that celebrated femininity include Wonder Woman, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Force Awakens, The Hunger Games movies, and to a lesser extent, Black Panther. That all turned out for making blockbusters better and more diverse.

Please, I would love to see half of the Avengers be women by the fifth installment of that series. Keep in mind that for basically the whole first two Avengers movies, there was one woman on the team, and no one here was making a fuss about that.

 

[Bayne]

That would be great; who are they? I've spent this whole thread trying to make the numbers work, and they don't add up with both an Eternals film and an F4 film. Well, maybe there will be female Eternals besides Sersi and Thena (I can't think of any) and maybe Sue Storm's sibling will be gender-swapped.

Here's what I've got so far.
Captain Marvel 1 & 2: 2 female heroes (Mar-Vell presumably dead)
GotG3: Adam Warlock & a female hero
The Eternals: at least one more male hero than female (let's say 3-2)
X-Men: equal ratio of students, male Xavier
Fantastic 4: 3-1 male
That brings us to something like 11-9. Assuming no gender swaps, that means 3 more female heroes introduced in solo films or Avengers before projects like Nova or James Gunn's Moon Knight.

You can't make the numbers work because you're basing your entire thought process on blind assumptions that are themselves biased towards male characters.

We have no evidence as to how many female heroes may or may not appear in the CM movies.

We have no evidence as to how many new heroes may appear in Guardians 3, nor as to when Guardians 4 will happen or who will star in it.

We have no evidence as to who will be the main focus of the Eternals or even if all the comic characters will appear.

We have no evidence as to whether the F4 or the X-men will be in phase 4 at all and we certainly have no evidence that the X-men will automatically feature a fifty fifty gender split.

We have no evidence that Nova or Moon Knight are definitely happening at all.

And we have no evidence yet about what other projects might be in the works or what new characters may be introduced in future Avengers films. That could easily include things like A-Force, Spider-Woman, Scarlet Witch, Elsa Bloodstone, Moondragon, America Chavez, Rogue, Storm, Spectrum, Thor (Jane Foster), She-Hulk, Tigra, Quasar, etc, etc.

 

[Big Bang]

is appealing to a feminist reading any different than appealing to a fan reading?

Very different. One is there to support the product, the other is there to support an agenda. When people go seeking to be entertained, they want products. Not agendas. They want escapism, not to have reality shoved in their face.

Yet the idea of appealing to inclusivity and diversity always causes fans to low-key get very uptight and defensive.

I disagree. If Feige had come out and been specific about bringing out all sorts of X-Men characters (who are amongst the most popular, and just happen to be female), than the response would be collectively positive. If that is what he wanted to say yet couldn't because the acquisition deal that is bringing those characters home hasn't closed yet, then I understand the need for vagueness.

For the record, as another poster pointed out, recent blockbusters that celebrated femininity include Wonder Woman, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Force Awakens, The Hunger Games movies, and to a lesser extent, Black Panther. That all turned out for making blockbusters better and more diverse.

At their core, each of those films kept true to the spirit of their respective property. Each of them didn't primarily outright try to appeal to any groups or agenda driven narrative. They put out products that appealed to those core fans and from there branched out. They didn't go out of their way to drive away any particular fans, or outright attack them. Contrasted with films that were agenda driven, and did attack the fans, the differences in the economic outcomes are rather obvious.

Celebration of strong female characters has already been shown to work for decades, within the context of good storytelling. Example: Ellen Ripley from the Alien series. Literally nobody ever took issue with that story or that Ripley was female, and it never needed to be agenda driven. She was completely relatable, even to male fans, yet she didn't lose any of her femininity. She even overshadowed the male characters in Aliens, but it was done is such a well crafted way that it made complete sense. The film is celebrated and has stood the test of time as a result.

 

[MasterCat]

Celebration of strong female characters has already been shown to work for decades, within the context of good storytelling. Example: Ellen Ripley from the Alien series. Literally nobody ever took issue with that story or that Ripley was female, and it never needed to be agenda driven. She was completely relatable, even to male fans, yet she didn't lose any of her femininity. She even overshadowed the male characters in Aliens, but it was done is such a well crafted way that it made complete sense. The film is celebrated and has stood the test of time as a result.

Speaking of Aliens, Vasquez is another character who's stood the test of time. She's a fairly average Marine who's also a woman and they lightly touch on how that affects her life.

 

[Big Bang]

Speaking of Aliens, Vasquez is another character who's stood the test of time. She's a fairly average Marine who's also a woman and they lightly touch on how that affects her life.

The banter she had with Hudson was hilarious too. Yet, the fate they suffered together showed that despite the barbs, they were comrades. It was excellent storytelling.

 

[honestbharani]

IIRC correctly he said that after the Civil War's name reveal and the big announcements of the rest of phase 3 (Doctor Strange, Black Panther, GotG 2, AMatW, Inhumans, Captain Marvel and Infinity Part I and II).

No, I meant he never said that more than half of the MCU heroes will be female, which is what the poster seemed to be implying.

 

[honestbharani]

It's not as clear cut as that. If it was, Marvel would have pulled everything Hulk related, slapped a different name on it or in support of another character they do have full rights to and gone forward. They also wouldn't have bothered trying to buy back the distribution rights. Given the chance, Universal (and by extension, Comcast) would jump at any chance for a lawsuit.

No, it honestly is that simple. The only reason they are not doing that is because they know the original character they name the film after has to be big enough to justify the investment of the casting the hulk (don forget all the CGI and Mo-Cap cost) and also because if the character is a big name then by definition the fans expect a lot out of that story too.

 

[Ozbridge]

No, I meant he never said that more than half of the MCU heroes will be female, which is what the poster seemed to be implying.

Oh Feige said something along the line of it here. The link was also posted by MasterCat in the first post of this thread.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

IIRC correctly he said something along the line of "Captain Marvel is the most powerful individual in the MCU, more powerful than even Captain America or Thor".

Of course there is a gulf in power level between Cap and Thor, so that statement doesn't end up meaning too much. They aren't comparable. It is like saying "Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL, even better than Blake Bortles and Tom Brady." If he said Hulk and Thor, it would make more sense.

 

[honestbharani]

Oh Feige said something along the line of it here. The link was also posted by MasterCat in the first post of this thread.

I did read those and again he never actually said what the poster seems to think he has said.

 

[Ozbridge]

Of course there is a gulf in power level between Cap and Thor, so that statement doesn't end up meaning too much. They aren't comparable. It is like saying "Aaron Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL, even better than Blake Bortles and Tom Brady." If he said Hulk and Thor, it would make more sense.

Yeah I misremember. Feige said back in 2016:

“All of the Marvel characters have flaws to them, all of them have a deep humanity to them. With Captain Marvel, she is as powerful a character as we’ve ever put in a movie. Her powers are off the charts, and when she’s introduced, she will be by far the strongest character we’ve ever had. It’s important, then, to counterbalance that with someone who feels real. She needs to have a humanity to tap into, and Brie [Larson] can do that.”

http://collider.com/captain-marvel-powers-kevin-feige/

Anyway as it has been clarified that quote wasn't what honestbharani was looking for.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Yeah I misremember. Feige said back in 2016:

Ok, thanks.

 

[TheVileOne]

These type of discussions make both sides of an argument insane IMHO.

Marvel Universe IMHO already has a diverse library of characters. What's wrong with showcasing more of them onscreen in major roles if they are minorities or women? I think if you made a Thunderbolts movie, the ideal main character is Songbird to be the main window into the story.

If the gender and identity politics are that serious, than make the MCU Wolverine the Laura/X23 version.

At the same time, if a Nova movie gets made, I don't want to see people losing their **** if it's a white male actor as Rich Ryder. If they use Sam Alexander, so be it.

And I want a Jewish actor to play Marc Spector as Moon Knight. That's important to me.

 

[DACrowe]

Much of the fan service isn't about making a quality product, it is about making a fanbase happy. And films are more than products, at least the ones worth remembering are. They all have perspectives and points-of-view, and the good ones (and plenty of bad ones) try to say something. That includes the best Marvel Studios movies like the Guardians films or Black Panther.

Emphasizing femininity in the MCU would not be a bad thing when again, most of the team-up movies pre-Infinity War have had one or (at max) two female characters, and none of them ever center stage in the way that Tony and Cap always are. And Infinity War didn't really correct this as the only real protagonist, if there was one, was Thanos.

If fans have no issue with the first Avengers only having a token woman on the team, I don't see why anyone would have an issue with going forward half the Avengers are women.

 

[Big Bang]

Much of the fan service isn't about making a quality product, it is about making a fanbase happy.

Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with fan service. Fans are the life blood of any series, and servicing them with a good story are indeed hallmarks of a quality product.

And films are more than products, at least the ones worth remembering are. They all have perspectives and points-of-view, and the good ones (and plenty of bad ones) try to say something. That includes the best Marvel Studios movies like the Guardians films or Black Panther.

Sure, films can be more than a product. However Marvel films at their core are super hero stories. Any other messaging is secondary to that, and only serve to compliment the overall story is being told about the hero.

Emphasizing femininity in the MCU would not be a bad thing

Additional femininity can be an additional element (i.e. more female characters), but again that must be secondary to the point that these are stories about heroes/heroines. The sex of the characters doesn't mean as much as the journey that he or she undertakes and the conflict they are faced with. Those are the elements people show up to watch. Having 50x as many female characters means absolutely nothing if their stories aren't good or enjoyable. Otherwise all you end up with is a bunch of bad female lead films that nobody enjoys.

most of the team-up movies pre-Infinity War have had one or (at max) two female characters, and none of them ever center stage in the way that Tony and Cap always are.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having had a majority male central cast. That's not to say there isn't room for additional female characters to take center stage. Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk are amongst the most recognizable super heroes that Marvel had available to them when they embarked on building the MCU. Focusing on them to build the brand was the best route they had available to them, and from there they have slowly branched out. They've reached a point where they can not only start to try to reach different groups of people but even take bold risks. Beyond that, those four characters and the journey and struggles they faced were relatable to women as well.

If fans have no issue with the first Avengers only having a token woman on the team, I don't see why anyone would have an issue with going forward half the Avengers are women.

By that logic, that is like saying any additional women being added are just more tokenism. Besides, who said they have to be Avengers? They can be independent heroines, members of the X-Men or related team, etc. If there is a good story behind the character to be told, fans will show up to watch it. Male or female.

 

[psylockolussus]

Sounds like the X-Men are returning home and Marvel are getting most of their A and B list female heroes back. Storm, Rogue, Domino, Psylocke, Emma Frost, Shadowcat, Jean Grey, Jubilee, Siryn, Polaris, Magik and Pixie are all returning.

I wouldn't mind a X-Women movie.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Indeed, is appealing to a feminist reading any different than appealing to a fan reading? Or rather fan service, which the Marvel Studios movies are shameless about? (How many sites run "easter egg" guides?). Yet the idea of appealing to inclusivity and diversity always causes fans to low-key get very uptight and defensive.

For the record, as another poster pointed out, recent blockbusters that celebrated femininity include Wonder Woman, Mad Max: Fury Road, The Force Awakens, The Hunger Games movies, and to a lesser extent, Black Panther. That all turned out for making blockbusters better and more diverse.

Please, I would love to see half of the Avengers be women by the fifth installment of that series. Keep in mind that for basically the whole first two Avengers movies, there was one woman on the team, and no one here was making a fuss about that.

Yep. The "pandering" argument is so stupid because it ignores that the same fans who don't want other groups to be "pandered" to expect to receive that same treatment themselves. Meanwhile, it also assumes that there aren't feminist superhero fans, which couldn't be more wrong.

 

[Ozbridge]

I don't care about what agenda Feige and Marvel Studio creative team are trying to push but if I were Bob Iger after Wonder Woman and Black Panther's success I would ask them to produce more movies "pandering" to the SJW crowd.

 

[MasterCat]

Meanwhile, it also assumes that there aren't feminist superhero fans, which couldn't be more wrong.

I'd say it's bad business practice to make a mega-budget tentpole film for feminists. We can charitably estimate that half of adult superhero fans are women, but only 23% of American women identify as feminists.
Disney is actually quite well positioned to make woman-centric tentpole films (Frozen, the live-action Princess remakes) but feminist fanservice is probably a bad idea unless it's in a project that's budgeted as a niche film.

 

[DACrowe]

Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with fan service. Fans are the life blood of any series, and servicing them with a good story are indeed hallmarks of a quality product.

Fans are the life blood of a franchise, but who says the only fans who should be serviced are the ones who catch comic book easter egg references? These movies are seen by millions of people around the world and take in (when they're big) billions. They can try to reach to a wider audience than just the mostly male comic fan community, and perhaps in the process they can also shine a light on the female roster of comicdom that has been so woefully underrepresented for decades onscreen that Wonder Woman's release in 2017 felt like a small cultural phenomenon.

Sure, films can be more than a product. However Marvel films at their core are super hero stories. Any other messaging is secondary to that, and only serve to compliment the overall story is being told about the hero.

The best superhero movies do not make the messaging secondary, and that includes The Dark Knight Trilogy, Logan, Spider-Man 2, and yes, even some of the best Marvel Studios films like Black Panther and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2. Saying genre cannot be meaningful is shortchanging the genre we all like as being intellectually hollow, especially when these elements tend to serve characters better. Consider how woefully underused Black Widow has been for all these years or, in the case of 20th Century Fox, Storm or Rogue.

Additional femininity can be an additional element (i.e. more female characters), but again that must be secondary to the point that these are stories about heroes/heroines. The sex of the characters doesn't mean as much as the journey that he or she undertakes and the conflict they are faced with. Those are the elements people show up to watch. Having 50x as many female characters means absolutely nothing if their stories aren't good or enjoyable. Otherwise all you end up with is a bunch of bad female lead films that nobody enjoys.

There is nothing inherently wrong with having had a majority male central cast. That's not to say there isn't room for additional female characters to take center stage. Captain America, Iron Man, Thor, and Hulk are amongst the most recognizable super heroes that Marvel had available to them when they embarked on building the MCU. Focusing on them to build the brand was the best route they had available to them, and from there they have slowly branched out. They've reached a point where they can not only start to try to reach different groups of people but even take bold risks. Beyond that, those four characters and the journey and struggles they faced were relatable to women as well.

By that logic, that is like saying any additional women being added are just more tokenism. Besides, who said they have to be Avengers? They can be independent heroines, members of the X-Men or related team, etc. If there is a good story behind the character to be told, fans will show up to watch it. Male or female.

So why is there something inherently wrong with having an ensemble that is more equal?

This thread is filled with so much anxiety and suspicion based on a single quote that sounds like it was almost off-the-cuff. Clearly Feige is aware one of Marvel's blindspots is its misuse and neglect of female characters, especially for a young audience of girls who have shown to exist for these kind of films thanks to Hunger Games, Wonder Woman, and Star Wars. He says they will try to correct it. That isn't based on an agenda, it is based on recognizing a shortcoming of what came before and correcting it.

 

[fan4stic]

Yep. The "pandering" argument is so stupid because it ignores that the same fans who don't want other groups to be "pandered" to expect to receive that same treatment themselves. Meanwhile, it also assumes that there aren't feminist superhero fans, which couldn't be more wrong.

I think there's a difference between wanting fiction to be the way they've known it and twisting it around to make a political statement.

I can say that if it was just announced that there will be a bunch of movies with many female superheroes, I wouldn't react much at all. But the phrase, "there will be more female superheroes than males" or "more diversity", I kinda cringe. Those sound like political buzzwords to me.