fumanstan

Totally agree, and even Harley only came around recently in the 90's as a creation for the Animated Series. I agree with what you said earlier too, that Wonder Woman might be the biggest character you can argue for "why wasn't a movie made earlier" but even then you can look at how WB/DC struggled with Batman and Superman in the 90's and 2000's as a perfectly valid reason why they weren't able to get a Wonder Woman movie off the ground.

On the Marvel side, as a casual comic book fan myself I'm not really sure what female character I'd be offended about not getting a standalone movie. X-Men is my jam, but even i'm not clamoring for a Jean Grey or Storm movie

Mike86

Yeah, Marvel is arguably worse in terms of having characters to pick from. Like I said before a lot of the good ones are part of teams like Jean Grey, Storm, Scarlet Witch, Sue Richards. Not sure how much deeper you’d realistically go. I guess you could do X-23 as either a team character or solo. Solo characters are way more limited though. Captain Marvel, Ms. Marvel, and She Hulk. I actually really like Spider-Gwen for an alternate universe character and could totally see her working in a film. Some of the others they’ve done like Thor Goddess of Thunder and the female Iron Man (Woman I guess) feel like total pandering political correctness bullshit.

Josh-da-man

Marvel has a ton of awesome female characters. The problem is that they're mutants, and the X-Men family characters, regardless if they're male or female, don't really work as solo characters. Wolverine being the exception. And Deadpool, but he's an oddball of a character.

But I think that Marvel could absolutely kill with Ms. Marvel movies with Kamala Khan. She could be their Wonder Woman.

majorjoe23

Maybe I’m just confused with the phrasing up above, but 300 wasn’t a DC/Vertigo Comic. It’s Dark Horse.

Jay G.

I think this is just passing the buck, and perpetrating a vicious cycle. "Why do these films/comics cater primarily to males? Because males are the main audience. Why are males the main audience? Because the films/comic cater primarily to them."

There's no reason why movie studios wouldn't want to expand the audience beyond male comic readers, and you can see actions they took to make superhero movies more appealing to the "mainstream." You even have the first X-Men movie making fun of spandex uniforms. So saying "that's what the comics audience was at the time" doesn't really explain why studios would only make those movies.

You can see the early Marvel movies (Hulk, Iron Man, Thor) making attempts to appeal to female audiences, but primarily via a romantic subplots with women the heroes can win over.

That may explain why there hasn't been a Black Widow movie, but it doesn't necessarily explain why it took them so long to make a Captain Marvel movies. She's a "super" character that they could've introduced sooner.

Well, it kinda is a sign of sexism, just not solely on the part of the movie studios. It's endemic, with long roots stretching back to the beginning of the comics industry. Wonder Woman, as a comic, was specifically created as a response to that. And even with a Wonder Woman movie out now, that doesn't mean the sexism and bias no longer exists.

Jay G.

300 was developed/released by WB though, so maybe he was referencing them as other comic adaptations WB did.

Mike86

That’s just it though. A lot of the good female characters are mutants and would likely be part of team up films whereas it seems like people are mad that there aren’t enough films focused only on females. There aren’t a whole ton of great solo female characters to base films off of.

I actually just messed up. I thought for some reason it was done by DC or Vertigo. I guess I just assumed so due to it being produced by WB.

While that might be true you can’t really change what’s in the past and the era most of these popular characters were created. Times were completely different in terms of where we’re at as far as equality then vs. now (obviously still not perfect now but society is getting there). It’s not a fair reality I’ll admit but it is what it is.

fumanstan

Catering to demographics is a reality in business and marketing, regardless of the industry.

I hope you're not interpreting my comments as "Super Heroes are for boys!!!" because that's not the point at all. It's simply that studios had to start somewhere, so doesn't it make sense to start with adapting properties and characters with an existing audience?

And yes, it makes sense to expand the audience and appeal to a bigger audience. I don't disagree nor am I saying that movies don't do so.


If you feel like the reason they didn't introduce her sooner is because she's a woman, you'e free to. Maybe it's true given Ike Perlmutter, I don't know.

Not directed at you specifically, but I don't feel like Marvel should be expected to have released a Captain Marvel movie earlier or made a Black Widow movie just because they were lacking a female led movie. That almost makes it sound like they have a box they need to check.

I can agree with that regarding the history. And felt like I acknowledged that behavior and attitude certainly still exists in another point and in the rest of the paragraph that you decided not to quote.

Mike86

I don’t think superheroes are just for boys either to be clear. My point is just that the reality of the situation is there are more popular male heroes than there are female heroes and it’s completely logical why there aren’t as many female based films. I know that’s not what people like to hear but realistically you can’t change it much unless you force change which rarely works well. Most new characters developed people don’t really latch onto either.

fumanstan

That's where I'm coming from too. I think it's easy to discuss on the internet and tell strangers how things *should* be in an ideal world where everything and everyone is represented properly and fairly with a movie going public that shares that ideal of equality. But we don't really live in that world, and decisions about what movies get made reflect a wide variety of opinions and biases. Are some of those due to sexism or racism? Sure. I just think there's often more to it then that.

Heck, put yourself in the scenario: It's 1997 and Batman and Robin just bombed. You are a superhero fan fiction writer who's Geocities site somehow just caught the attention of every single movie studio executive and they're barking down your door to develop whatever properties you choose. The stipulation is if they fail at the box office your career is done and you are resigned to live in your parent's basement for the rest of your life.

Which properties are you turning in to movies? Are you picking a male hero, a female hero and then a minority hero just to be fair? Or are you picking the most popular and well known characters and maybe a sequel or two? I'm probably making Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, and X-Men movies just like the studios did too.

jjcool

We have no idea what was said. It was stated, by someone in this thread, that Hollywood said that people don't want to see female led superhero movies, and that is why we have very few female led superhero movies. There seems to be no evidence of "Hollywood" actually saying that.

Well, when all evidence points to them not making money, why would they make more? This applies to all films. How many years did we go with no musicals? or Westerns? etc. Again, its show "business". They exist to make money, pure and simple. If a certain type of film has shown to not make money, regardless of whether the entries were crappy or not, chances are they aren't going to risk their money making another. It's all about money, not the sex of the lead character.

Jay G.

....except through their actions, such as Marvel releasing 20 MCU films before releasing a female-led one. Or WB going through several Batman & Superman series & reboots over several decades before releasing a Wonder Woman film.

What is "them?" What's the defining characteristic of those films that caused them to fail? You're erroneously thinking that they didn't make money because they were female-led films, when it's far more likely they failed because they were bad.

This just exemplifies Hollywood thinking. Westerns were declared "dead," and then Dances with Wolves comes out and makes a ton of money. Then Hollywood floods the market with a bunch of hastily made, bad Westerns, and they declare Westerns dead again. And then Unforgiven comes out, and the cycle repeats.

You see this also with Musicals, where Hollywood for the most part stops making, a really-good one somehow managers to get made and becomes a massive success, and then studios scamper to ride on its coat-tails by green-lighting a bunch a musicals, not all of them good, and are surprised when the bad ones don't do as well.

They try and blame the genre, or the star, or the gender of the lead, etc, never really acknowledging that the movies that didn't do well were often just not that good.

Mike86

Wonder Woman is the exception though. DC could have and should have done a film with her earlier I agree considering that she’s put up with Batman and Superman as one of DC’s big three characters.

Marvel I don’t think had a strong enough female hero to lead with. I’d wager in some ways Captain Marvel is still somewhat of a gamble as while she’s got some name value I wouldn’t consider her a huge character. Marvel has had good luck so far with chances they’ve taken so I don’t think they need to worry too much. I think starting with her may have been more risky though. I think of the characters they had the rights to at the time that they chose the ones who were most easily marketable and got lucky.

brayzie

So Marvel is taking a risk on producing a new female superhero character film, rather than going with their already established Black Widow character?

It's clear that there was some Superman and Batman favoritism going on at WB.

For every 11 Superman/Batman superhero films (not including spin-offs), there was only 1 non-Superman/Batman superhero film put out (Green Lantern).


I don't like Hollywood thinking either, but it's not necessarily always wrong either.
Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind come out in 1977 and blew up. Studios thought, hey there's an audience for big budget sci-fi! They wanted more Star Wars money. 20th Century Fox green lights Alien, and it's a hit. Paramount green lights Star Trek: The Motion Picture. That one is meh, but it starts a successful film franchise.


And the reality is that sometimes great films do poorly, and crappy films make money.
Unfortunately you have people that will see films just based on the star of the film, or the genre, or other factors.
My aunt was never into comic books or superheroes, but now sees just about any movie with the MARVEL logo, just based on their reputation. She took her kid to see Deadpool just because it had MARVEL logo, and later regretted it because she didn't realize there would be nudity. She just assumed Deadpool was like every other Marvel movie.

Jay G.

Iron Man wasn't thought of as a huge character either when Marvel launched the MCU. It was thought of as a huge gamble, and there were articles talking about how Marvel was delving into their "b-list characters" to build a movie franchise.

Then Iron Man did really well, because it was a really well done movie.

And I mean, Marvel did Guardians of the Galaxy, a movie with nearly zero recognition outside of comics that featured a talking raccoon, and it did well with audiences. There were a lot of doubters for that film as well.

Audiences don't need a "huge character" to like a movie and make it a huge hit. It just has to be well made and have audiences respond positively to it.

Mike86

Like I said though I think they went with characters who were marketable. Also I think that when the MCU was first coming to be that comic films were still not quite hitting the mainstream audience like they are now. Their films are what really popularized the genre and things have and continue to grow.

Draven

But again, Black Widow has fit all of that criteria since The Avengers

brayzie

But Sony had Spider-man in film, Fox had the whole X-Men/mutant franchise to themselves, and I think Hulk was also some other studio. Fantastic Four was also Fox I think.
That leaves Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America. I would have thought Captain America would have been the first official Marvel Studios film. I wonder why it came after Iron Man?

Yeah, but by that time Marvel was already an established brand to film goers. Yeah, it was still a risk, but they already had success with three different superhero film franchises going on, and they had just put out one the biggest selling films, The Avengers.
In general I agree that with regards to Marvel, their choice of films seem riskier from the traditional "Hollywood thinking" perspective.
GotG, unknown to the general public starring the guy from Parks and Recreation, and freaking Ant-Man, as opposed to an Avengers spin-off featuring an established character, starring ScarJo.

Well that last part is what can be so tricky.
Everyone here says Dredd was awesome. It did poorly.
Many, many well made films have, for whatever reasons, not had audiences respond positively to it, at least in terms of box office. The studio can control the quality, but not the audience response.

Mike86

I truly don’t think so. I’m sorry to say but I don’t think a film for her is that necessary. Scarlett Johansson is a great actress but the Black Widow character in my honest opinion works better as part of an ensemble. I’ve already went over why I feel that way. It’s the same reason why Hawkeye or other SHIELD agents aren’t getting their own films. I know she’s popular but so is Samuel L. Jackson so does that mean there should be a Nick Fury movie?

Draven

I think there are plenty of little girls out there who would have loved to see Black Widow kicking ass in her own movie. I know my daughter would have. Just like they did for Wonder Woman

Mike86

I have nothing against a role model for girls. My point is from the stance of a character that’s really in need of a solo film. If there was something more unique to her character I could see the argument but a female agent isn’t all that exciting. The element of her character you could make interesting is one that would be glossed over most likely (that she’s an assassin). At the end of the day I don’t see what would make a film with that character any more unique than other spy films starring female leads (and they are out there). Other characters as obscure as they may be like Ant-Man or Doctor Strange bring something different to the table versus something that’s been done a bunch of times over just not with this particular Marvel character.

Michael Corvin

She's an assassin. Hardly a role model for little girls. She works fine in the MCU because she isn't the focus, the brightly colored superheroes are.

Jay G.

I understand why they went with a lesser-known character; my point was Iron Man being a lesser known character didn't matter, because they delivered a solid film.

Which means they could've done a Captain Marvel film then, 5 years and 11 films earlier.

Dredd isn't a superhero movie. It's a nihilistic super violent action film. It's a different sell than Wonder Woman or Captain Marvel. And I feel it wasn't marketed well and dumped in one of the worst times to release a film, just after everyone's gone back to school.

Which is why it's stupid when people act like studios know what the fuck they're doing and have a good reason to not make female superhero movies. Wonder Woman proved that female superhero films can do well. If essentially the same film had been released 10 years earlier, when Patty Jenkins first pitched it, it would've proved that 10 years earlier. Studios have been sitting on their ass in a tizzy worrying about whether people can "accept" a female superhero, meanwhile they're greenlighting talking raccoons.

Mike86

Hey let’s not forget though Harley Quinn is considered a role model despite being a murderous criminal who also lets herself get abused mentally and physically by The Joker. It’s cool though because she’s a woman and she’s popular.

brayzie

Iron Man is a lesser known character compared to Spider-man, but he's one of the primary Avengers team members, and Marvel Studios goal was to introduce the individual Avengers-team in order to lead up to an Avengers film. Supposedly, they made the choice based on the fact that it was the only major Avengers character not depicted in film already or tied up with other studios (Thor was with Sony until 2006).

I agreed with you in regards to Ant-man vs Black Widow, and that Black Widow should have came out before GotG. Using traditional "studio thinking", Black Widow is more of a sure thing, Ant-man is riskier. Got

But saying Captain Marvel should have come out instead of GotG...it's not quite the same. Maybe Marvel Studios saw the success of superhero ensembles like Fox's X-Men series, and their own Avengers films, and based some of their decision on that.

Good point, and touché (I criticized the mention of V for Vendetta earlier based on similar reasoning).

But in regards to your advice, Hollywood just needs to make good movies. This was a case of a supposedly good film that just didn't resonate with the movie-going public. Also, I think too many people still remembered the awful Stallone Judge Dredd, and had negative associations with the character. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of the public didn't know Judge Dredd is a comic book property.

Is that what people here are doing? I was thinking that posters, including myself, are arguing that in some cases it's not so cut and dry as you make it out to be.

How do you know for certain? You just said that Dredd's marketing and release date is what accounted for its poor box office. It sounds like you're now saying multiple factors play into a film's success.

Not only that, but it's possible that it wouldn't have been quite the same film, had WB greenlit Jenkins' first pitch.

Personally, I feel Gal Gadot was a big reason why Wonder Woman was as good as it was.
Iron Man without Robert Downey Jr?
What about The Dark Knight without Heath Ledger? I doubt these three films would be as successful as they were without these actors being cast.

Yeah, because live-action talking animal films have never been successful.
EDIT:
Jay G., I looked up on the development of GotG. Apparently the early scripts didn't even include Rocket Raccoon, and he only got included because Kevin Feige was a fan of the character, so my snarky comment alluding to successful live-action talking animal characters (Alvin and the Chipmunks, Garfield, Babe) wasn't even a factor for GotG. Yeah, Marvel seemed to be taking quite the risk with those characters within the film.

And the only studio that made a superhero film that featured a talking racoon came from Marvel, so why talk about the studios as if they're this monolithic entity?