Marvel accused of sexism

[Spidey-Lad93]

http://nypost.com/2015/05/07/marvel-and-its-sexist-superhero-movies-hit-a-new-low/
Get a load of this crap

 

[seahammer]

Interesting... I googled the author of that article and found this:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/womenand...ron-from-a-disappointed-feminist-fan-20150430

Looks like she's trying to create/push an issue that isn't that profound. She clearly has an agenda, and is trying to be a squeaky wheel. (assuming that isn't just some profound coincidence, where it is two different journalists with the same name...)

 

[MadVillainy]

There are many problems facing women in Hollywood.

However I think people are blowing Marvel's role in it out of proportion.

 

[seahammer]

^You phrased that much better than I did in my post. I sounded a bit insensitive, and didn't mean to say that there is no issue for women in Hollywood... but that AoU isn't it.

 

[Mad Ones]

I'm sure this thread will eventually disintegrate as people start dismissing feminists for being "oversensitive" and "looking for problems." Which is unfortunate because it's an important discussion.

Calling Marvel Studios sexist as if it's a whole coherent entity is problematic. But some of its elements are expressive of sexism. Ike Perlmutter did say he doesn't want solo movies because Catwoman, Supergirl, and Electra were terrible. That's sexism thinly veiled behind economic concerns. How many movies have Marvel Studios made without making a solo female movie? How many male led movies to go before Captain Marvel comes out? And inequality regarding merchandise is an issue. You can buy a set of Avengers toys that just leaves Black Widow out. And having one woman on the team, and repeating that in Guardians of the Galaxy, is not good.

A lot of these issues are products of problems in Hollywood, but that doesn't mean Marvel can't do anything about them. I think people are sensitive about Marvel because they are producing "heroes". They say a lot about who is able to do certain things in society. Marvel Comics are miles ahead of the movies regarding diversity right now.

It's a list of complaints that keeps piling up, and people should be allowed to complain about it. I can't figure out for the life of me why Marvel isn't putting out Captain Marvel instead of Ant Man. Or why a Black Widow movie won't be made.

 

[MadVillainy]

I just dont think anyone cares about Black Widow that much. That's what Ive always been saying whenever someone goes against Marvel making a Black Widow film.

Now why wasnt Captain MArvel...or even Black Panther (a different issue) took so long to get made, I do think that was a bit of sexism and racism

 

[Mad Ones]

I agree with you. But I would say after Lucy did so well it would be a good business decision to make a Black Widow solo movie. I know people who are interested in her (and who like Scar Jo). She could lead a really fun spy movie if Marvel let her.

 

[warhorse78]

I'm sure this thread will eventually disintegrate as people start dismissing feminists for being "oversensitive" and "looking for problems." Which is unfortunate because it's an important discussion.

Calling Marvel Studios sexist as if it's a whole coherent entity is problematic. But some of its elements are expressive of sexism. Ike Perlmutter did say he doesn't want solo movies because Catwoman, Supergirl, and Electra were terrible. That's sexism thinly veiled behind economic concerns. How many movies have Marvel Studios made without making a solo female movie? How many male led movies to go before Captain Marvel comes out? And inequality regarding merchandise is an issue. You can buy a set of Avengers toys that just leaves Black Widow out. And having one woman on the team, and repeating that in Guardians of the Galaxy, is not good.

A lot of these issues are products of problems in Hollywood, but that doesn't mean Marvel can't do anything about them. I think people are sensitive about Marvel because they are producing "heroes". They say a lot about who is able to do certain things in society. Marvel Comics are miles ahead of the movies regarding diversity right now.

It's a list of complaints that keeps piling up, and people should be allowed to complain about it. I can't figure out for the life of me why Marvel isn't putting out Captain Marvel instead of Ant Man. Or why a Black Widow movie won't be made.

Ike is one of the worst representatives for Marvel in all of Hollywood. The guy is clearly not only sexist, but racist too, what with his comments on the departure of Terrence Howard from Iron Man 2.

But that said, I don't consider AOU sexist, there was just one line of dialogue that I just simply would have preferred it left on the cutting room floor. I mean, after all, one of the most powerful players in AOU was a woman, Scarlet Witch. Heck, when it comes to powerhouse Steve Rogers, nothing stops him in his tracks as the lovely Peggy Carter, in a dream sequence no less.

However, the author of the article is not wrong when it comes to filmgoers, women do indeed make up more than half of the domestic BO, and it's been mostly women driven movies that tend to be the tops, like Hunger Games or Frozen. Heck, when I was at the screening for the AOU, for some stupid reason, the theater owner had the women and men raise their hands when called out, because he wanted to get a statistic, and he was surprised, on opening night, for a Marvel Movie Marathon, the audience consisted of 73 percent female. And the majority of us were there because of the hot guys like Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth. One of the comic book fanboys there made a comment that if they might have shown Captain America taking a shower, just from the waist up, he suspected that could get the movie an extra 30 million domestic, on that shot alone! Heh, I agree, perhaps I would go see it again if a scene like that was in it!

 

[Shikamaru]

I'm sure this thread will eventually disintegrate as people start dismissing feminists for being "oversensitive" and "looking for problems." Which is unfortunate because it's an important discussion.

Calling Marvel Studios sexist as if it's a whole coherent entity is problematic. But some of its elements are expressive of sexism. Ike Perlmutter did say he doesn't want solo movies because Catwoman, Supergirl, and Electra were terrible. That's sexism thinly veiled behind economic concerns. How many movies have Marvel Studios made without making a solo female movie? How many male led movies to go before Captain Marvel comes out? And inequality regarding merchandise is an issue. You can buy a set of Avengers toys that just leaves Black Widow out. And having one woman on the team, and repeating that in Guardians of the Galaxy, is not good.

A lot of these issues are products of problems in Hollywood, but that doesn't mean Marvel can't do anything about them. I think people are sensitive about Marvel because they are producing "heroes". They say a lot about who is able to do certain things in society. Marvel Comics are miles ahead of the movies regarding diversity right now.

It's a list of complaints that keeps piling up, and people should be allowed to complain about it. I can't figure out for the life of me why Marvel isn't putting out Captain Marvel instead of Ant Man. Or why a Black Widow movie won't be made.

I've heard this criticism before and I don't really understand it. The reason it took Marvel this long to make Captain Marvel is because it took them so long to get to their C-list characters in the first place.

The first two phases were set entirely around their A and B-list properties (Cap, Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, Avengers). Guardians was the only exception*, and mainly to 1) set up more Thanos and be 2) have an FF substitute to expand on the cosmic side. With the FF at Marvel, I highly doubt Guardians would have happened anytime soon.

Phase 3, as Feige stated many times, would be the start of them getting their unknown properties on screen. Contrary to popular belief, none of the other properties were fully unknown or non-mainstream (except Guardians); they just weren't Spider-Man/X-Men level popular. And given just how young of a studio Marvel is, and how they haven't really made it big till just 3 years ago, it makes sense business-wise. Now they're ready to release their unknown properties in line: Ant-Man, Doctor Strange, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Inhumans.

I'm not denying there's systemic sexism within Hollywood, but this is a totally unfair criticism on Marvel's part IMO. If Black Panther and Captain Marvel weren't C-list in the first place, Marvel wouldn't have waited this long. They were just as fairly treated as the other Phase 3 properties in the Marvel pantheon. They were all properties about as equally popular with fans and about as equally unknown with the GA, and now they're all getting films. Why were they somehow obligated to release those two particular films sooner?


*You could also count Ant-Man as an exception but 1) it was greenlit entirely due to Wright and 2) it was originally announced as the start of Phase 3.

 

[warhorse78]

But, why didn't they just make a Black Widow movie then, I bet she is just as popular since the first Avengers movie as Ironman, Captain America, Thor and the Hulk? They have a great actress playing her, someone who is consistent and strong with critics and BO.

Also, I don't understand about this whole thing with Ant Man being green lit because of Edgar Wright. He's pretty much only known by die hard filmgoers and internet fanboys. The GA have no idea who he is, and won't associate a movie being good or bad with his name attached, unlike well known directors like Steven Spileberg, James Cameron or Christopher Nolan. Paul Rudd and Michael Douglas also really haven't had a BO smash in years.

 

[SuperT]

Yea, I don't get the line of thinking that Black Widow isn't interesting or popular enough for a solo. Given all the hubbub around her character and how she was portrayed in AoU, I'd say that's completely false.

Also, I still can't believe that we've already had three Iron Man, three Captain America, three Thor (who is bar none, the most uninteresting MCU character), an Ant-Man movie and ANOTHER unneeded Spider-Man movie before we get even one movie with a minority or female lead. Ridiculous.

 

[Shikamaru]

But, why didn't they just make a Black Widow movie then, I bet she is just as popular since the first Avengers movie as Ironman, Captain America, Thor and the Hulk? They have a great actress playing her, someone who is consistent and strong with critics and BO.

Because Black Widow has historically been more of an exclusive team character than a solo one like Iron Man/Cap/Hulk/Thor. She's no different than Hawkeye or Ant-Man in that regard (the latter is only getting a solo because of Wright).

Sexism would be blatant when you have two characters/people of equal value (one male and female) and the female is under-represented in whatever way. If you have a male and female worker who do the same job for the same amount of time but the male worker earns more, that's sexism. If the male is a manager while the female is a casual employee, then it's not. If we apply that same analogy to these characters, your assumption would only be right if Black Widow was as valuable of a property as the other 4, but she's not. She'd be more closer to Hawkeye in that regard, and if we apply the worker analogy, she's still gotten the longer end of the stick compared with him (so far).

We're also getting 2 Marvel female shows this year (Agent Carter and Jessica Jones in December). The former was the most critically acclaimed superhero show on TV prior to Daredevil coming out, and it featured a minor supporting character that wasn't anywhere as big in the comics. The latter is still very unknown and is being released before Luke Cage and Iron Fist, both being properties that have historically existed for longer and are arguably slightly more valuable in terms of popularity. I don't think Marvel fears doing female characters. At best it's just one of many many factors, but there's no way it's the predominant factor.

Also, I don't understand about this whole thing with Ant Man being green lit because of Edgar Wright. He's pretty much only known by die hard filmgoers and internet fanboys. The GA have no idea who he is, and won't associate a movie being good or bad with his name attached, unlike well known directors like Steven Spileberg, James Cameron or Christopher Nolan. Paul Rudd and Michael Douglas also really haven't had a BO smash in years.

Marvel themselves stated the project was only happening because Wright wanted it to be made. It was his baby. He had his hands on it all the way back since they were working on Iron Man. They obviously wouldn't admit to it at this stage in the game, though.

 

[warhorse78]

Yea, I don't get the line of thinking that Black Widow isn't interesting or popular enough for a solo. Given all the hubbub around her character and how she was portrayed in AoU, I'd say that's completely false.

Also, I still can't believe that we've already had three Iron Man, three Captain America, three Thor (who is bar none, the most uninteresting MCU character), an Ant-Man movie and ANOTHER unneeded Spider-Man movie before we get even one movie with a minority or female lead. Ridiculous.

Shhhh, you might upset some fans. Granted, I probably would have completely fallen asleep if Loki wasn't in it!

 

[warhorse78]

^ Because Black Widow has historically been more of an exclusive team character than a solo one like Iron Man/Cap/Hulk/Thor. She's no different than Hawkeye or Ant-Man in that regard (the latter is only getting a solo because of Wright).

We're also getting 2 Marvel female shows this year (Agent Carter and Jessica Jones in December). The former was the most critically acclaimed superhero show on TV prior to Daredevil coming out, and it featured a minor supporting character that wasn't anywhere as big in the comics.

Oh, bull shiznit! Just in the comics. They should have seen the potential of a movie with her could be like. Heck, Universal saw the potential, so stuck Scarlet JoHansson in a BW rip off called Lucy, which did pretty good at the BO, considering.

And I'm just not buying that Ant Man is getting a solo because of Wright, when the dude is no longer even a part of the project. And even then, they sat around, for 6 years while Edgar Wright was dicking around, but they couldn't just scrap together a Black Widow movie with Hawkeye and Maria Hill as supporting members? Heck, maybe this would have been a good time to bring in Sharon and try and flesh her out while waiting for Captain America 2 to be done.

 

[Fincher]

Heck, Universal saw the potential, so stuck Scarlet JoHansson in a BW rip off called Lucy, which did pretty good at the BO, considering.

Lucy isn't remotely a Black Widow ripoff.

 

[Mad Ones]

It's a film in the same genre with the same actress. It proves there is interest in Scar Jo as Black Widow.

 

[Fincher]

Sure, I don't disagree with that.

 

[Shikamaru]

Yea, I don't get the line of thinking that Black Widow isn't interesting or popular enough for a solo. Given all the hubbub around her character and how she was portrayed in AoU, I'd say that's completely false.

I never said she isn't, but it makes sense why she didn't get one thus far. And they also gave her a huge role in TWS which inherently belonged to Sharon Carter (not arguing that was a problem).

Also, I still can't believe that we've already had three Iron Man, three Captain America, three Thor (who is bar none, the most uninteresting MCU character), an Ant-Man movie and ANOTHER unneeded Spider-Man movie before we get even one movie with a minority or female lead. Ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous? Again, going back to my real-life analogy, those are all properties with more value in the first place (other than Ant-Man which I already explained). They're like CEO's and managers compared with the more lower-ranked positions occupied in Phase 3. And if you look at other white male characters in the pantheon that rank equal to T'Challa and Carol (like Doctor Strange and the mostly white male Inhumans), they're all getting a film around the same time. They're treating them equal in that regard.

Thor's film was pushed back too. Why? Because Spider-Man is a property with more value.

 

[def28]

^ Because Black Widow has historically been more of an exclusive team character than a solo one like Iron Man/Cap/Hulk/Thor. She's no different than Hawkeye or Ant-Man in that regard (the latter is only getting a solo because of Wright).

We're also getting 2 Marvel female shows this year (Agent Carter and Jessica Jones in December). The former was the most critically acclaimed superhero show on TV prior to Daredevil coming out, and it featured a minor supporting character that wasn't anywhere as big in the comics.

Aside from wanting to see a Black Widow film I agree. We can't have everything at once, and if Thor and Cap were not here then people would constantly be *****ing about that. Can't win. People want everything at once haha. DC and Fox have not exactly made great use of their known female characters as well. And Marvel arguably has the lesser knowns. These think piece articles going for Marvel is getting old.

With the upcoming Jessica Jones, Agent Carter and Skye's focus on AOS we are gonna get a solid amount of female focus within the year. We have Ms Marvel coming out soon as well and hopefully Wasp will come into play.

The one thing that Marvel has to get better at immediatly is a balance of Merch for these female characters. Scarlet Witch, Black Widow and Gamora should all have more out there. That's really the one constant complaint I think is the most valid.

 

[Snow Queen]

I'd have easily taken a Black Widow movie over Iron Man 2. I understand the need for Thor, despite not being that fond of it, but Iron Man 2 felt superfluous. Could have given her a better introduction, actually made her a character off the bat instead of eye candy and been a genre Marvel hadn't tackled by being a spy movie.

While Marvel's got some good side characters who are female and is taking steps on TV, it doesn't change that their line up on film has lacked diversity (not just in gender) and I feel that "oh, but they have good female side characters" is a poor defence.

I should say, I don't think they're the worst at this or anything. But just no better than the rest of Hollywood, for whom I have similar complaints.

 

[def28]

While Marvel's got some good side characters who are female and is taking steps on TV, it doesn't change that their line up on film has lacked diversity (not just in gender) and I feel that "oh, but they have good female side characters" is a poor defence.

What could they do though that wouldn't be for the sake of diversity? Ms Marvel and Widow are the only female Marvel characters that can hold their own in a solo and also make sense at this point. Nico in the Runaways is the only other one I can think of grabbing that spotlight. And she won't be a major Avenger or anything as she is with a different team.

If we get Kate Bishop she will be a co star, She-Hulk won't happen, Tigra will be a side character and likewise with White Tiger etc.

 

[Shikamaru]

^ Other than those characters, most of the other females I could think of are over at Fox. They sadly don't have too many options.

Crystal could also serve as the main lead of Inhumans, or at least be a dual protagonist with Black Bolt.

Still, the fact they'll have 2/4 TV shows by the end of 2015 with a female lead shouldn't be overlooked. Plus if you consider Skye and Coulson dual protagonists, that leaves Daredevil as the only predominantly male-driven show they have.

 

[Snow Queen]

What could they do though that wouldn't be for the sake of diversity? Ms Marvel and Widow are the only female Marvel characters that can hold their own and make sense at this point. Nico in the Runaways is the only one I can think of. And she won't be a major Avenger.

If we get Kate Bishop she will be a co star, She-Hulk won't happen, Tigra will be a side character etc.

You say that as though diversity is a bad thing and that it can't be done in a way that adds to the universe. As I said, a Black Widow movie in phase 1 or even phase 2 could have gone a long way, I think. Especially in phase 1, where her introduction is poorly handled. And I don't mind if those are the only two, just...use them. Anything that isn't led by a straight, white, cis man for once. It's taken them 10 years and 15 films (I'm not counting Avengers in this as I feel it's decently balanced to the point where there isn't one sole lead) to get to any diversity in their leads. If the MCU existed in a vacuum, it wouldn't be a problem. But it doesn't, and it's hard not to see how the MCU has handled diversity so far as continuing the usual problems the rest of the system has in many ways.

 

[Lilbaz]

I'm sure this thread will eventually disintegrate as people start dismissing feminists for being "oversensitive" and "looking for problems." Which is unfortunate because it's an important discussion.

Calling Marvel Studios sexist as if it's a whole coherent entity is problematic. But some of its elements are expressive of sexism. Ike Perlmutter did say he doesn't want solo movies because Catwoman, Supergirl, and Electra were terrible. That's sexism thinly veiled behind economic concerns. How many movies have Marvel Studios made without making a solo female movie? How many male led movies to go before Captain Marvel comes out? And inequality regarding merchandise is an issue. You can buy a set of Avengers toys that just leaves Black Widow out. And having one woman on the team, and repeating that in Guardians of the Galaxy, is not good.

A lot of these issues are products of problems in Hollywood, but that doesn't mean Marvel can't do anything about them. I think people are sensitive about Marvel because they are producing "heroes". They say a lot about who is able to do certain things in society. Marvel Comics are miles ahead of the movies regarding diversity right now.

It's a list of complaints that keeps piling up, and people should be allowed to complain about it. I can't figure out for the life of me why Marvel isn't putting out Captain Marvel instead of Ant Man. Or why a Black Widow movie won't be made.

Maybe they do their most popular comic books first?

 

[def28]

You say that as though diversity is a bad thing and that it can't be done in a way that adds to the universe. As I said, a Black Widow movie in phase 1 or even phase 2 could have gone a long way, I think. Especially in phase 1, where her introduction is poorly handled. And I don't mind if those are the only two, just...use them. Anything that isn't led by a straight, white, cis man for once. It's taken them 10 years and 15 films (I'm not counting Avengers in this as I feel it's decently balanced to the point where there isn't one sole lead) to get to any diversity in their leads. If the MCU existed in a vacuum, it wouldn't be a problem. But it doesn't, and it's hard not to see how the MCU has handled diversity so far as continuing the usual problems the rest of the system has in many ways.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing in any way. Just that it's slim picking here, and they will have to find some characters that don't even hold their own solo comic titles. Which will make it kind of a forced effort over other characters.

I agree with Widow, wish we had one. But other then Ms Marvel, there's not a lot of solo female options at this point.