• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Thursday Aug 14, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST. This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Race and Gender in Marvel Movies - an all studios discussion

Marvel's 'Black Widow' Delay Is A Huge Disappointment, But Not For The Reasons You May Think

n-BLACK-WIDOW-large570.jpg


Former Marvel chairman Stan Lee recently announced that Black Widow, the fierce Russian spy and agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. played by Scarlett Johansson in the current Marvel movies, might be the subject of a feature film. That would be really brilliant news for female superheroes ... except Lee doesn't expect Marvel Studios to bring Natalia Romanova's story to the big screen until after the company completes work on lesser-known heroes like Doctor Strange, the Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man.


Not familiar with Ant-Man? Well, he's a scientist, capable of shrinking in size, armed with a helmet that can control ants, and -- spoiler alert -- a straight, white, male.

When you think about it, most superheros fit the demographic portion of that description. Of course, on some level, this reflects the fact that macro culture is defined by the straight, white, male. Yet, the trend is especially problematic when it comes to superheroes, because of the way in which superheroes are defined. For an archetype driven by the concept of strength in otherness, superhero legends have quite the problem with others.

Pragmatically speaking, the straight, white, male superhero thing is working. In the past year alone, Iron Man, Superman, and Wolverine "have proven to be," as the BBC put it, "just as adept at pulling in audiences as they are at saving the world." And, while we're on the subject of numbers, one could just as easily look to the failures that were "Elektra," which cost $43 million and grossed just under $25 million, or the larger-scale flop "Catwoman," which had a $100 million budget and made only $40 million. Although, that's not enough evidence to claim women aren't a big enough draw for the genre, because both also happened to be pretty bad films (scoring, respectively, 10 percent and 9 percent on Rotten Tomatoes).



Yes, "Iron Man 3," "Man of Steel" and "The Wolverine" pulled in the big bucks this summer, but those films were all also, flaws aside, generally great. ("Man Of Steel," scoring the lowest of the three, still came in at 56 percent on Rotten Tomatoes.) Box office numbers and critic ratings are two distinct measures of success, but we can't really determine the effect of female superheroes on the former, until there is one that draws praise in the latter. There's no arguing that there has yet to a be a critically acclaimed, female superhero film.

Helen O'Hara of Empire magazine argues that "these films are all based on the very best-known and most-popular characters who are, for the majority, men." A fair and true statement, but was Iron Man well known before "Iron Man"? Is Ant-Man well known now? Certainly not more so than Black Widow, very recently popularized by Joss Whedon's blockbuster "Avengers" films (not to mention Johansson, a household name in her own right). Speaking of Whedon, where the hell is our modern-day Wonder Woman movie? (Whedon, of course, had the script for a Wonder Woman film all written out, but Warner Bros. executives rejected it.)



See, despite comprising 50.8 percent of the population, films for women are still considered part of a niche market. There have been successes with female protagonists (like "Twilight" and "The Hunger Games"), but the market has predominantly found the largest profits when geared toward the straight, white, male. Even Black Widow's creator Stan Lee is less than excited for his Russian badass to to take center stage. As he told Too Fab:

Well probably at one time, they'll make a movie of the Black Widow. But you see, the thing is the women like these movies as much as the guys, so we don't have to knock ourselves out to find a female.
The implications of Lee's statement transcend the lack of female heroes and extend to the lack of minority one, because, in short: Hey, all these marginalized people are already watching the straight, white, males, anyway! Obviously, as discussed, there is a largely economic factor in driving the executive decisions to create and spotlight the straight, white, male superheroes that it seems everyone will continue watching. But the real tragedy is that the genre has been not used to empower the minority strength, which it exemplifies in the first place.

Superheroes are defined, in all cases, by their otherness. In understanding ourselves as part of a societal group, we sort the world into categories of "us" and "them," with minorities that don't fall into our "us" grouping designated to the "them." Minorities are consequently alienated, simply by virtue of being different. This is a cognitive reality that informs the formation of prejudicial constructs, and leads to much of the discrimination minorities face.


Like minorities, superheroes are classified as "others," specifically non-human others. As a result of this automatic aspect of the genre, superhero protagonists are often persecuted and feared, because of the assumption that being different is dangerous. The beauty in that default aspect of any super plot line, is that superheroes ultimately persevere and understand that the very quintessence of their otherness comes with an obligation to actionable goodness; they get over the Daily Bugle's smear campaign, strap on the tights, and save the day.

In the sense that superheroes personify otherness as a source of (literal) power, they are arguably the most poignant minority protagonist. What a shame, then, that almost all of them comprise a demographic group that absolutely never has to suffer from the limitations of otherness. Since their inception, superhero films have succeeded economically and provided another example of the battle of good and evil, but they have yet to tap their most positive moral market. Ironically enough, all the non-white, non-straight, non-males, will have to sit through the entirety of Ant-Man long before superhero films do anything to help them feel less small.



For comments inside open link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-duca/marvel-black-widow_b_3957449.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment
 
Being a Black male, I'm all about diversity and would love to see more multicultural superhero's in comic movies but, I'm honestly not a fan of having Johnny Storm black in the new F4 movie. I really don't even like the entire new casting, it reminds me that Marvel needs the movie rights back on F4. I like comic characters to stay true to the source material, but it doesn't bother me when supporting characters races are changed for the movies. I remember when the rumor of Will Smith being Superman or Captain America was all over the place years ago before Man of Steel or First Avenger was even being made and I wasn't fond of it, nor would I be fond of a white or asian or hispanic playing the Black Panther or John Stewart (Green lantern). I guess I want the leading role/superhero roles to look like there original character, and I'm a fan of Michael B Jordan, but it is still a odd choice for him to be the Human Torch.

Good point.
 
Being a Black male, I'm all about diversity and would love to see more multicultural superhero's in comic movies but, I'm honestly not a fan of having Johnny Storm black in the new F4 movie. I really don't even like the entire new casting, it reminds me that Marvel needs the movie rights back on F4. I like comic characters to stay true to the source material, but it doesn't bother me when supporting characters races are changed for the movies. I remember when the rumor of Will Smith being Superman or Captain America was all over the place years ago before Man of Steel or First Avenger was even being made and I wasn't fond of it, nor would I be fond of a white or asian or hispanic playing the Black Panther or John Stewart (Green lantern). I guess I want the leading role/superhero roles to look like there original character, and I'm a fan of Michael B Jordan, but it is still a odd choice for him to be the Human Torch.

I dare say many of us feel the same way around here - we want our favorite characters to resemble their classic looks as much as possible - simple as that.

I can see no reason that War Machine and Falcon are black in the movies - other than that's the way they are in the comics and I would not want it any other way.

I want my Luke Cage to look like Terry Crews and not Vin Diesel.

Likewise, I would like all the members of the new FF to look as much like their comic book counterparts as possible - most of the reboot cast does not fit the bill...
 
How about Lady Sif and Lorelei having the central role in tonights AoS?
Nice to see Sif kicking ass and encountering the first female villain of the MCU.
Totally raped a guy.

It was good but they managed to fit a bit of misandry in there which irks me... Yeah yeah, check your privilege cis scum et cetera. :whatever:
 
Being a Black male, I'm all about diversity and would love to see more multicultural superhero's in comic movies but, I'm honestly not a fan of having Johnny Storm black in the new F4 movie. I really don't even like the entire new casting, it reminds me that Marvel needs the movie rights back on F4. I like comic characters to stay true to the source material, but it doesn't bother me when supporting characters races are changed for the movies. I remember when the rumor of Will Smith being Superman or Captain America was all over the place years ago before Man of Steel or First Avenger was even being made and I wasn't fond of it, nor would I be fond of a white or asian or hispanic playing the Black Panther or John Stewart (Green lantern). I guess I want the leading role/superhero roles to look like there original character, and I'm a fan of Michael B Jordan, but it is still a odd choice for him to be the Human Torch.

I agree 100%. As I have said previously, I'm not a fan of changing the race of a character for the sake of diversity. I'd rather see a studio use one of the numerous Black characters (or Latino, Asian, Native American, etc.) that already exist, or create an original.
 
Being a Black male, I'm all about diversity and would love to see more multicultural superhero's in comic movies but, I'm honestly not a fan of having Johnny Storm black in the new F4 movie. I really don't even like the entire new casting, it reminds me that Marvel needs the movie rights back on F4. I like comic characters to stay true to the source material, but it doesn't bother me when supporting characters races are changed for the movies. I remember when the rumor of Will Smith being Superman or Captain America was all over the place years ago before Man of Steel or First Avenger was even being made and I wasn't fond of it, nor would I be fond of a white or asian or hispanic playing the Black Panther or John Stewart (Green lantern). I guess I want the leading role/superhero roles to look like there original character, and I'm a fan of Michael B Jordan, but it is still a odd choice for him to be the Human Torch.

Great post, exactly my feelings on the matter, I want the characters portrayed how I've read them my whole life or similarly.
 
Fine, but then never complain that the companies never try anything new. It makes you look like a hypocrite.
 
Marvel's 'Black Widow' Delay Is A Huge Disappointment, But Not For The Reasons You May Think

n-BLACK-WIDOW-large570.jpg


Former Marvel chairman Stan Lee recently announced that Black Widow, the fierce Russian spy and agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. played by Scarlett Johansson in the current Marvel movies, might be the subject of a feature film. That would be really brilliant news for female superheroes ... except Lee doesn't expect Marvel Studios to bring Natalia Romanova's story to the big screen until after the company completes work on lesser-known heroes like Doctor Strange, the Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man.


Not familiar with Ant-Man? Well, he's a scientist, capable of shrinking in size, armed with a helmet that can control ants, and -- spoiler alert -- a straight, white, male.

When you think about it, most superheros fit the demographic portion of that description. Of course, on some level, this reflects the fact that macro culture is defined by the straight, white, male. Yet, the trend is especially problematic when it comes to superheroes, because of the way in which superheroes are defined. For an archetype driven by the concept of strength in otherness, superhero legends have quite the problem with others.

Pragmatically speaking, the straight, white, male superhero thing is working. In the past year alone, Iron Man, Superman, and Wolverine "have proven to be," as the BBC put it, "just as adept at pulling in audiences as they are at saving the world." And, while we're on the subject of numbers, one could just as easily look to the failures that were "Elektra," which cost $43 million and grossed just under $25 million, or the larger-scale flop "Catwoman," which had a $100 million budget and made only $40 million. Although, that's not enough evidence to claim women aren't a big enough draw for the genre, because both also happened to be pretty bad films (scoring, respectively, 10 percent and 9 percent on Rotten Tomatoes).



Yes, "Iron Man 3," "Man of Steel" and "The Wolverine" pulled in the big bucks this summer, but those films were all also, flaws aside, generally great. ("Man Of Steel," scoring the lowest of the three, still came in at 56 percent on Rotten Tomatoes.) Box office numbers and critic ratings are two distinct measures of success, but we can't really determine the effect of female superheroes on the former, until there is one that draws praise in the latter. There's no arguing that there has yet to a be a critically acclaimed, female superhero film.

Helen O'Hara of Empire magazine argues that "these films are all based on the very best-known and most-popular characters who are, for the majority, men." A fair and true statement, but was Iron Man well known before "Iron Man"? Is Ant-Man well known now? Certainly not more so than Black Widow, very recently popularized by Joss Whedon's blockbuster "Avengers" films (not to mention Johansson, a household name in her own right). Speaking of Whedon, where the hell is our modern-day Wonder Woman movie? (Whedon, of course, had the script for a Wonder Woman film all written out, but Warner Bros. executives rejected it.)



See, despite comprising 50.8 percent of the population, films for women are still considered part of a niche market. There have been successes with female protagonists (like "Twilight" and "The Hunger Games"), but the market has predominantly found the largest profits when geared toward the straight, white, male. Even Black Widow's creator Stan Lee is less than excited for his Russian badass to to take center stage. As he told Too Fab:

The implications of Lee's statement transcend the lack of female heroes and extend to the lack of minority one, because, in short: Hey, all these marginalized people are already watching the straight, white, males, anyway! Obviously, as discussed, there is a largely economic factor in driving the executive decisions to create and spotlight the straight, white, male superheroes that it seems everyone will continue watching. But the real tragedy is that the genre has been not used to empower the minority strength, which it exemplifies in the first place.

Superheroes are defined, in all cases, by their otherness. In understanding ourselves as part of a societal group, we sort the world into categories of "us" and "them," with minorities that don't fall into our "us" grouping designated to the "them." Minorities are consequently alienated, simply by virtue of being different. This is a cognitive reality that informs the formation of prejudicial constructs, and leads to much of the discrimination minorities face.


Like minorities, superheroes are classified as "others," specifically non-human others. As a result of this automatic aspect of the genre, superhero protagonists are often persecuted and feared, because of the assumption that being different is dangerous. The beauty in that default aspect of any super plot line, is that superheroes ultimately persevere and understand that the very quintessence of their otherness comes with an obligation to actionable goodness; they get over the Daily Bugle's smear campaign, strap on the tights, and save the day.

In the sense that superheroes personify otherness as a source of (literal) power, they are arguably the most poignant minority protagonist. What a shame, then, that almost all of them comprise a demographic group that absolutely never has to suffer from the limitations of otherness. Since their inception, superhero films have succeeded economically and provided another example of the battle of good and evil, but they have yet to tap their most positive moral market. Ironically enough, all the non-white, non-straight, non-males, will have to sit through the entirety of Ant-Man long before superhero films do anything to help them feel less small.



For comments inside open link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-duca/marvel-black-widow_b_3957449.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

I'm REALLY not getting Stan's reasoning here? So they fact that a lot of women like the Marvel movies is somehow an incentive NOT to try and make a female-led film? I would have thought that it'd be the exact opposite. The reason is obvious, they're not making those movies because they would star women, and they're not sure that "women sell." It's that simple.
 
Marvel's 'Black Widow' Delay Is A Huge Disappointment, But Not For The Reasons You May Think

n-BLACK-WIDOW-large570.jpg


...


For comments inside open link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lauren-duca/marvel-black-widow_b_3957449.html?utm_hp_ref=entertainment

:applaud:applaud:applaud

Nice Huffpo. This addresses everything so well. Awesomeness.

I'm REALLY not getting Stan's reasoning here? So they fact that a lot of women like the Marvel movies is somehow an incentive NOT to try and make a female-led film? I would have thought that it'd be the exact opposite. The reason is obvious, they're not making those movies because they would star women, and they're not sure that "women sell." It's that simple.

Don't overstate his point. His point is that the incentive to create a female-led film (to get the woman audience) is already satisfied by the male-led film, so there is little incentive to make a female-led film. It would not get them any more money.

The incentive NOT to do a female-led film is the general chauvanism of society. While the women who see male-led films will go see a female-led film, the men who go see male-led films are not nearly as likely to see a female-led film. This is on top of the females who go to superhero films largely as a function of their associations with males.
 
I'm REALLY not getting Stan's reasoning here? So they fact that a lot of women like the Marvel movies is somehow an incentive NOT to try and make a female-led film? I would have thought that it'd be the exact opposite. The reason is obvious, they're not making those movies because they would star women, and they're not sure that "women sell." It's that simple.

No offense to Mr. Lee but he has little to do with what Marvel Studios does or why they do it - his involvement is a courtesy only - nuff said...
 
:applaud:applaud:applaud

Nice Huffpo. This addresses everything so well. Awesomeness.



Don't overstate his point. His point is that the incentive to create a female-led film (to get the woman audience) is already satisfied by the male-led film, so there is little incentive to make a female-led film. It would not get them any more money.

The incentive NOT to do a female-led film is the general chauvanism of society. While the women who see male-led films will go see a female-led film, the men who go see male-led films are not nearly as likely to see a female-led film. This is on top of the females who go to superhero films largely as a function of their associations with males.

Not sure where this imagined "chauvanism" is being displayed - but I am sure most of the fellas around her would be happy to see more of Scarlett in any Marvel movie - even in a solo or headlining effort...
 
Why Marvel/DC Would Benefit From Producing Black Superhero Standalone Films


Box office Numbers suggest that Black Superhero movies would in fact attract massive audiences.
By phantom1527 - 1/25/2014

People often argue that DC and Marvel shy away from creating movies with Black characters as the protagonists because most moviegoers couldn’t relate as well to it. Many also argue that the two publishers don’t possess any characters popular enough to bring to the big screen.



Box office numbers of several action/superhero movies debunk the theory that the majority of audiences couldn’t relate to black superheroes on film and wouldn’t buy tickets. For example, in 2008 Sony Pictures (who owns Spiderman cinematically) created a movie essentially created around a black Superman called “Hancock”. I will be the first to admit that movie was far from great, but it was able to make over $950,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) in theaters, which is more than films with well known white protagonists made like: “Thor”, “Thor 2”, “ Man of Steel”, “Batman Begins”, “Captain America: The First Avenger”, “The Amazing Spiderman” and others.


A few more examples of action/superhero movies with black protagonists that performed at the box office are “Django Unchained” and “The Book of Eli”. “Django” was basically The Punisher if the punisher was a former slave in the 1850’s. Nearly half of the movie was centered on a black bounty hunter shooting white people and it still made over $430,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) in theaters. “The Book of Eli” was about a black, blind swordsman who was killing his way through America until he reached the west coast. On a relatively small budget and with a modest marketing campaign the movie was still able to make nearly $170,000,000 (adjusted for inflation).

Some also argue that there just aren’t any popular enough characters to put on the big screen. The “Blade” franchise made over $500,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) in theaters and contributed to the rise in the popularity of the superhero genre. Batman, The Punisher, Superman, The Hulk and Spiderman have all had reboots in the past few years, so why not reboot Blade? Special effects have improved immensely since the last movie, and the horror/vampire genre is much more popular than it was 10 years ago. Also, both publishers have seen black characters like John Stewart, Black Panther, Cyborg, Static, Icon, Aqualad and Miles Morales rise in popularity through comic books and television shows. These characters might not be icons like Batman and Superman, but I imagine they have similar if not better name recognition than Ant-Man and The Guardians of the Galaxy.


Your Thoughts?

http://www.**************.com/other_news/news/?a=93442
 
Time for a blue marvel film.
A tv mini-series or tv series will be fine too.
 
Not sure where this imagined "chauvanism" is being displayed - but I am sure most of the fellas around her would be happy to see more of Scarlett in any Marvel movie - even in a solo or headlining effort...

Well, first I said society, not SHH, and this is definitely about solo films not just appearances. There may be a slight majority around here, there may not be, (It seems to be split evenly pro and against a solo film in the Black Widow threads), but in the GA, movies like Hunger Games can be wildly successful and highly acclaimed, but they simply can't bring in as many men as a male-led film can. If they don't make up for that in women viewers, they do worse, even if they're the same or higher quality. That's the chauvinism of society manifesting in this instance.

Do you really question that society is chauvinistic? I thought that was a given.
 
With regards to race changing, I think the reason that Jamie Foxx as Electro and MBJ as Human Torch (I believe will) work is because both characters are mostly recognizable for their "powered" states rather than their human forms. When you see Electro glowing blue or Johnny Storm fully flamed on, you can recognize them as their respective characters even though they're a different race. That's my litmus test for this kind of casting: if you can watch the actor in action and not forget who they're supposed to be, it's okay. That's why it wouldn't work to make Black Panther or Luke Cage white: their "blackness" is their most recognizable attribute.
 
Why Marvel/DC Would Benefit From Producing Black Superhero Standalone Films


Box office Numbers suggest that Black Superhero movies would in fact attract massive audiences.
By phantom1527 - 1/25/2014

People often argue that DC and Marvel shy away from creating movies with Black characters as the protagonists because most moviegoers couldn’t relate as well to it. Many also argue that the two publishers don’t possess any characters popular enough to bring to the big screen.



Box office numbers of several action/superhero movies debunk the theory that the majority of audiences couldn’t relate to black superheroes on film and wouldn’t buy tickets. For example, in 2008 Sony Pictures (who owns Spiderman cinematically) created a movie essentially created around a black Superman called “Hancock”. I will be the first to admit that movie was far from great, but it was able to make over $950,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) in theaters, which is more than films with well known white protagonists made like: “Thor”, “Thor 2”, “ Man of Steel”, “Batman Begins”, “Captain America: The First Avenger”, “The Amazing Spiderman” and others.


A few more examples of action/superhero movies with black protagonists that performed at the box office are “Django Unchained” and “The Book of Eli”. “Django” was basically The Punisher if the punisher was a former slave in the 1850’s. Nearly half of the movie was centered on a black bounty hunter shooting white people and it still made over $430,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) in theaters. “The Book of Eli” was about a black, blind swordsman who was killing his way through America until he reached the west coast. On a relatively small budget and with a modest marketing campaign the movie was still able to make nearly $170,000,000 (adjusted for inflation).

Some also argue that there just aren’t any popular enough characters to put on the big screen. The “Blade” franchise made over $500,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) in theaters and contributed to the rise in the popularity of the superhero genre. Batman, The Punisher, Superman, The Hulk and Spiderman have all had reboots in the past few years, so why not reboot Blade? Special effects have improved immensely since the last movie, and the horror/vampire genre is much more popular than it was 10 years ago. Also, both publishers have seen black characters like John Stewart, Black Panther, Cyborg, Static, Icon, Aqualad and Miles Morales rise in popularity through comic books and television shows. These characters might not be icons like Batman and Superman, but I imagine they have similar if not better name recognition than Ant-Man and The Guardians of the Galaxy.


Your Thoughts?

http://www.**************.com/other_news/news/?a=93442
A lot of good points were raised but I feel like Blade's importance is greater than represented in that article. Blade didn't merely contribute to the rise of superhero movies it kicked off the modern age of superhero movies
 
Time for a blue marvel film.
A tv mini-series or tv series will be fine too.

How about some other black superhero whose entire existence hasn't been terrible? The Blue Marvel is all the joys of the Sentry, with worse writing.
 
With regards to race changing, I think the reason that Jamie Foxx as Electro and MBJ as Human Torch (I believe will) work is because both characters are mostly recognizable for their "powered" states rather than their human forms. When you see Electro glowing blue or Johnny Storm fully flamed on, you can recognize them as their respective characters even though they're a different race. That's my litmus test for this kind of casting: if you can watch the actor in action and not forget who they're supposed to be, it's okay. That's why it wouldn't work to make Black Panther or Luke Cage white: their "blackness" is their most recognizable attribute.

So a black Spider-Man would "work" just like a white Panther would since their costume hides any hint of their ethnic origins.
 
How about some other black superhero whose entire existence hasn't been terrible? The Blue Marvel is all the joys of the Sentry, with worse writing.
I disagree.
By way the blue marvel from what i read is well written superhero and has a well written origin and is written better then the sentry and to me he is more interesting.
Both would be really interesting to see in live action,but to me i rather see the blue marvel or him first and more often.

I got back into marvel because of the blue marvel superhero and HIS powers,and because of the mighty avengers.
He is in the mighty avengers now.

These are my favorite marvel comics right now and the only two i normally get now from marvel.I have not read fully any of the issues i have yet but i will read all later.
I HEARD that the blue marvel comics and mighty avengers comics are really good/great,but anyway i will find out for myself,but so far what little i have read i enjoy and has keep my interest high.
 
Last edited:
I LiKE MY SUPERHEROES to be really powerful and could fly,go in space, kick the sentry and superman butt etc...

The black panther is an exception here on why he is one of my top favorites.
He does not have powers but he is really smart and the story about him could focus alot on africa.
He has beaten those who are even more powerful then him.

By the way they better do his origin right if they have movie about him.






My favorite TOP DC SUPERHEROS are john stewart,then icon and Jason Rusch/firestorm.

For marvel my favorite main top ones are blue marvel and the black panther.



My favorite team for marvel is the mighty avengers and for DC IS THE GREEN LANTERN CORPS AND THE JUSTICE LEAGUE.

These are the main ones from DC AND MARVEL I WANT TO SEE in live action and animation the most.

For DC the comics i normally get only is green lantern corps with john stewart and justice league.

Anything john stewart is in i will get in DC however AND ANYTHING the blue marvel is in i will get from marvel.

Not that long ago john stewart and the black panther were my top favorites,then it was john stewart,black panther and blue marvel.
Now my top 2 FAVORITES ARE blue marvel and john stewart.

Those two are really my top favorite superheroes from marvel and DC NOW.
 
Last edited:
Well, first I said society, not SHH, and this is definitely about solo films not just appearances. There may be a slight majority around here, there may not be, (It seems to be split evenly pro and against a solo film in the Black Widow threads), but in the GA, movies like Hunger Games can be wildly successful and highly acclaimed, but they simply can't bring in as many men as a male-led film can. If they don't make up for that in women viewers, they do worse, even if they're the same or higher quality. That's the chauvinism of society manifesting in this instance.

Do you really question that society is chauvinistic? I thought that was a given.

CF being the top grossing movie domestically last year hopefully has gotten rid of that myth.
 
As per having non traditionally portrayed superheroes, I'm for it. I'd watch a Black Panther movie as he is an interesting character as long as he's written well and not like the jerkhole he was in his own series for a while. As for Foxs casting decision for the Torch, I'm not picky as long as he can do the job. I'm curious if Fox will attempt to explain it away or just ignore it as Fox tends to either be heavy handed with explanations or just hopes no one questions it.
 
I'd prefer a Ms Marvel movie to a Black widow one. We'll already have had her on-screen four times and she's not the most interesting of characters
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"