Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Marvel Films' started by MasterCat, Jul 3, 2018.
I don't disagree. It was just a convenient search result for Moondragon in her original costume.
It doesn't help that Hope gets dusted in the post-credit scene while Scott doesn't. So once again he gets to be in the team-up whereas she doesn't.
How do you know that she doesn't? None of us have any real clue on what A4 is really. Its just assumptions at this point and that is nothing to go by, really.
Well, let me put it this way... I've never seen a straight woman complain that there are too many hot men in the MCU. Usually they complain that there aren't enough women heroes, but that isn't the same thing.
You see, that's funny because so far most of the fanservice in the MCU has been provided by the male protagonists. I wonder why that is... oh, could it be because the MCU doesn't have any female protagonists?
Yep. "Forced diversity" my glutei... if anything, the MCU suffers from a severe case of forced lack of diversity. But thankfully Feige seems to be aware of the problem and he's actively working to fix it.
Well except for Evangeline Lily telling us that she only has a small role in Avengers 4. But aside from that pesky detail, sure.
Also the male "fanservice" shots feel much more "token." It's why when some fans try to equate them with female characters wearing female superhero costumes, I point out that they're not the same thing.
How are those more "token"? What would you say the difference is?
Because there's a difference between a token shot or two of The Chris's with their shirts off or wearing tight fitting ones, but having costumes that more or less cover them from head to toe (or in Thor's case at most show off his arms), and say, Carol Danvers wearing a glorified one-piece swimsuit with thigh-high boots, or Scarlet Witch with a cleavage bearing outfit (even Liz Olsen has complained about that) as their default hero looks.
Not hard really. Also constant shots of female's asses or whatever. It's part of why I liked Wasp's outfit, and what they seem to be going with for Carol, etc.
"Not hard really". I was just asking for clarification.
Scarlet Witch I'll give you but I can't say that I really feel that the male shots are "token". It seems very much baked into the cake of what these movies are and always have been, and not something scotch-taped to each movie out of mere obligation. Paul Rudd did a million crunches a day for Ant-man and Chris Pratt went through rigorous workouts for months on end because physical fitness and looking sexually attractive is just part of it on all sides.
That's not to say that women and men are treated the same, but I don't understand your "token" complaint.
I mentioned something about this in another thread but I think what gets overlooked in a lot of these discussions is asking women what it is they are actually looking for. Im not talking about the screeching twitter feminists who arent really interested in superheroes, Im talking about Jill Averages of the World. Are they really going to suddenly take up comics because theres more girls on screen? Im willing to bet the answer is no for a large percentage of them. I think whats probably more important is the type of female heroes we get, not the quantity. I think the reason Wonder Woman appealed to so many women who werent superhero fans was because she represented the best qualities of women. And when you look at some of most popular female action heroes they all tend to have motivations and qualities that skew female. I think a big reason why theres never been as many successful female lead action films might be down to trying to remove these qualities in order to make the female seem more like a male, and I dont think that ends up appealing to most people. The question has to be asked if youre wanting to increase the number of female superheroes who are you doing it for, because if you want to appeal to women you have to tailor it more for that market. If youre just making her a strong female lead then youre not really doing it for the right reasons and you wont find success.
I find it funny how the fandom seems to enthusiastically support the MCU changing every female superhero costume while X-Men get nothing but grief no matter how faithful they are to the comics:
That's because every character that isn't Logan, Charles, or Magneto is mishandled/underused. These are separate issues. Your costumes can be ripped right off the page and could still make for a terrible adaption, and Psylocke is a good example of that.
OK, fair enough. The prequel series has plots and costumes ripped from the comics, but all but three characters are messed up.
Off the top of my head the reason current "female gaze" scenes differ from old and current "male gaze" scenes is that in female gaze scenes the actors are still portrayed as strong, masculine on top of being sexy, whereas in many male gaze scenes the actresses have to pose like pole dancers purely for the male audience with no additional purpose.
There's a difference.
You might also recall many scenes in which actresses pose ridiculously unnaturally to show their bodies, e.g. arched back, opened mouth, etc., as if women can have an orgasm taking a shower/ working out. Male actors can stand up straight looking broody.
Also in many male gaze scenes the actresses are undressed with the camera: close up shots following curves of their bodies with their faces not in the center of the screen, or even totally invisible (especially in booty shots). Female gaze scenes are rarely like that.
Another thing is choreography in action scenes can be suggestive, e.g. Natasha's "trapping enemies' neck between her thighs" move developed by feminist Joss Whedon, though later on Paul Reed used that for Hope and Scott in Ant-Man, so that move feels less gratuitous.
Excellent points, but I still don't see how the beefcake shots for the men are any more "token" then they are for their female counter-parts.
The vast majority of the MCU female heroines look pretty much like their comic counterparts. And Psylocke's look was one of the few well-received aspects of Apocalypse. Don't manufacture arguments to support something that doesn't exist.
Let's have sexy men and women.
We are already having that. People should not be doubting Feige's priorities to characters first but they are because comic book fans are the most entitled, over the top and irrational thinking lot out there.
It doesn't matter how we worded it. His work speaks for itelf. Stop lingering on trivial things and creating controversy. Feige didn't make any mistake. You are just looking for excuses to get triggered...
Right, so I don't think analyzing "gazes" gets us anywhere. Male heroes get to show off their pecs and men may groan because it seems a bit forced, and female heroes get to show off their asses while females shake their heads in disbelief. Sounds fair to me.
MCU Black Widow has her '70s costume, yes.
Maria Hill doesn't wear the black spandex with white leather boots/belts, but otherwise counts.
Pepper Potts is a close match.
The Scarlet Witch doesn't even wear scarlet. She has a half black/half brick red outfit from Hot Topic. Compare, well, 5 comics options they had:
Gamora has worn a black bikini and Stormtrooper armor, and originally looked like this:
... which the MCU changed to colorless motorcycle leathers.
Marvel's original Mantis:
Marvel's original Valkyrie:
That's four superheroines they completely changed off the top of my head, vs. one superheroine and two supporting characters.
Correct me if I am wrong here but doesn't a small role still imply she is IN the team up movie? Or pesky little details like facts should not matter?
And there's a solid reason for that. They are all terrible! Marvel has wisely updated many of those looks in the comics. The "We Can Never Go Home" comic covered horrible female hero outerwear:
I remember watching "The Wolverine" with my buddies, and after Hugh Jackman walked out on screen without his shirt on for literally the 5th or 6th time we all start chortling about the absurdity of it. It wasn't offensive or anything it was just very obvious that they REALLY wanted to show off Jackman's bod.
I honestly can't remember the last time I saw a female in a legitimate movie treated this way. Maybe Silvia Krystal in "Private School"?
Anyway, I agree with your overall point. I don't think there is anything wrong with sexy people looking sexy. Regardless of gender.
That's a valid argument to have, but there's a huge double standard where the X-Men can't change anything or it sucks while MCU directors are praised for changing characters from the source material.
I don't think that is true at all. Most folks are fine with changes from the source material - you have to be if you want to enjoy superhero films - so long as the changes make sense and the folks responsible for them capture the essence of the characters (or teams). Singer and (especially) Kinberg get criticized because they have earned said criticism. Reynolds gets praised for the Deadpool series and Feige for the MCU because every frame of their films reflect a tremendous love of the characters.