Discussion in 'Marvel Films' started by MbJ, Jan 10, 2018.
A writer is now attached, according to Variety.
Why do a Black Widow movie when you are about to get back the best female characters in the Marvel catalog via Fox?
And where the heck do you put this movie on the schedule?
I can't see this going anywhere.
I'm down for that. Admittedly I'm not the biggest Scarlett Johansen fan, but I think she'll be alright, as long as they get the right director. Personally, I'd like for the villain of this movie to be Yelena Belova. Although considering BW looks similar to her in IW...
Id soon rather have a solo She-Hulk movie than a Black Widow movie.
Hasn't even been greenlit yet. Plus, whose to say, like this film, where any potential characters from Fox's catalog would even fit in the schedule?
Most of the Fox women, while great, are ensemble characters rather than solo players anyway.
Fox has a lot of great female characters but, if it comes down to it, Black Widow should get her movie first. She's already an important player in the MCU and I'd love to see a straight up espionage/spy-thriller/superhero film.
The same could be said for Black Widow, though.
Finally, and it's a character where you don't need much CGI work to realize. Hire a female director who loves the character (a la Patty Jenkins) and make a lower-budget spy movie. Marvel Studios could probably make it for less than $100 million, even with ScarJo and Jeremy Renner's asking fees.
Marvel Studios has shifted release dates around several times. If Feige loves the script and wants it for a certain date, they will make room.
GOTG was announced in 2012, and the movie came out two years after. I would not be surprised if Black Widow gets scheduled for November 2020 or early 2021.
marvel must of saw red sparrow trailer and were like oh yeah we should probably work on this lol
Black Widow actually fares better than the X-women in that regard. The reason solo heroes are easier to make solo films about than ensemble ones is that solo characters generally have a more developed sense of world building about them. There's a reason why Marvel chose to do movies for characters like Doctor Strange, Black Panther and Captain Marvel but not other Avengers like Scarlet Witch, Vision or Falcon.
The first group of characters all have things that are easy to translate into a movie, like supporting casts (Wong, Night Nurse, the Ancient One, Shuri, the Dora Milaje), villains (Mordo, Kaecilius, Dormammu, Killmonger, Klaw, Yon-Rogg and the Skrulls) and even love interests. They also have years worth of solo stories that could be adapted in some form or used for inspiration. The second? They don't tend to have rogue's galleries or strong supporting casts because they were created as part of an ensemble, meaning they didn't need them. Their supporting casts were basically the other Avengers and their rogues are whichever villains the Avengers are fighting that week.
Black Widow is unique in that regard since even though she's never been terribly successful on the solo front, she has most of the same things the solo Avengers have. She has a supporting cast, she has a rogues' gallery, and she has love interests. A lot of them, actually. And she's had a large number of mini-series and short-lived ongoings that have story fodder for a movie.
The X-women and Sue Storm are (or at least were) better known and arguably more iconic, but they've never been able to cut it as solo characters in the comics. In fact, most X-Men who aren't Wolverine have consistently failed as solo properties. As a result, they fall into that category of characters I mentioned above like Scarlet Witch, Vision or Falcon, where they work way better as part of an ensemble film than as leads.
*Before someone says anything, I'm aware Vision recently had an acclaimed solo series. My broader point is that for most of their histories they haven't had the things I mentioned.
1) I'll believe it when I see it
2) If you think this will be a straight up espionage film than that's crazy
No one said that.
I'd be more interested had I liked Johansson in the role.
Better late than never, I suppose.
Look at what you yourself bolded. There are more words after "espionage" that clearly change the message of my post.
You honestly think that Marvel's first movie about a super spy/assassin won't have as much of an "espionage" feel as TWS?
Mind lending me that crystal ball of yours? I'd love to see what the next powerball numbers are going to be.
I look forward to it if it gets made.
Hoping. Great potential.
Anybody see that Colbert interview with Franco last night?
Sorry wrong thread.
Exactly. If you look at the X-Men, aside from Wolverine (and Deadpool), they are all very similar. They have the same supporting casts, same villains, same power source, and same basic character arc. They may look different and have different powers and personalities, but functionally they are very similar to each other. Certainly not enough to justify solo films for them. You really couldn't do much with an Iceman film as opposed to a Cyclops film. Now compare Spider-Man and Doctor Strange. One is a teenage kid who got powers in an accident and fights street criminals while going to school and dealing with real life issues, and the other is a powerful sorcerer who fights demons and gods across multiple dimensions. They are very different characters. Iceman and Cyclops are not.
And yes, it should be an action-spy thriller. Not only is that the character that they have established, but it helps fill a genre that the MCU has largely stayed away from aside from parts of TWS. I'm not saying it needs to be a totally serious spy thriller like Zero Dark Thirty, but I'd at least expect something that is more like James Bond than the typical superpowered exploits.
Get the creative team of Banshee.