Obi-Wanma

Especially when the Captain Marvel that you're making IS the Ms. Marvel that most people think of when they hear the name.

Draven

Frankly, the idea that people as talented as the people who work at Marvel Studios couldn't come up with a good Black Widow movie just because you couldn't think of one is kind of silly.

And Black Widow is FAR more popular than Hawkeye in the Marvel movie universe.

Honestly? My guess is that Elektra was generally regarded as a bright spot in Affleck's Daredevil and Alias was on the air.

Mike86

I don’t think she really carries a film on her own. The character, not Scarlett Johansson. I mentioned it earlier but the popularity of the actress overshadows the popularity of the character in this instance. It’s why she’s regulated as a side character like a Hawkeye. It’s pretty easy to see that. Hell for a side character she’s actually had decent roles in at least two films with bigger characters (Iron Man 2 and Captain America: The Winter Soldier). Black Widow isn’t in the same leagues as a Wonder Woman. She at best is an agent who’s a really good assassin which probably is another factor into why it’s harder to do a film with her. Disney isn’t going to want to make a film where a well liked character is killing people left and right.

Jay G.

Elektra was announced just a week after Daredevil premiered in theaters:
https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk...announced.html

Daredevil was actually a bit of a hit on its first weekend in theaters:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darede...lm)#Box_office

We like to think of Daredevil as a "failed" film nowadays, but at the time, it was a modest success, at least financially.

Jay G.

Black Widow has a very minor role in Iron Man 2. I can't even remember he saying anything.

She had a pretty substantial role in the first Avengers, and in Avengers 2 and Civil War she was treated pretty equally among the ensemble.

A Black Widow movie isn't going to work as a "superhero movie." It'd have to be more a spy/action movie along the lines of Jason Bourne, James Bond, Mission Impossible, etc. Last summer's Atomic Blonde was an interesting template they could use (although Marvel would probably shy away from an R rating). The upcoming Red Sparrow has a plot that seems strikingly similar to Black Widow's backstory.

Why So Blu?

^ You already have Red Sparrow coming out and that looks like what a Black Widow movie would sort of be.

Draven

Hey, I actually kind of like Affleck's Daredevil. And I didn't know Elektra had been announced that early. I still think it's because she had some cool scenes in the movie and Garner was a bit of a known quantity at the time.

devilshalo

The theatrical release or the Director's Cut? The latter seems to garner more favor than the former.

Jay G.

I think "kinda like" was the critical consensus at the time.

Well, keep in mind that "announced" doesn't equal "greenlit." They had also announced a Daredevil 2 around the same time.

That said, I agree that it was likely a mix of audience response to her character, and Jennifer Garner's "rising star" status that likely caused Fox to rush to greenlight the spinoff, striking while the iron was hot, so to speak.

rocket1312

Daredevil was a BIG success for Marvel. The box-office totals look pedestrian now, but the international market wasn't nearly what it is today. It was one of the highest grossing February releases of all time up to that point and it was also the first Marvel movie to feature a relatively unknown character. (I'm not counting Blade, because that was essentially sold on the basis that it was a Wesley Snipes action movie, not a Marvel Comics movie.) Remember, at that point Marvel had only done the first X-Men and Spider-Man movies. No one really knew for sure if the whole super-hero thing could work outside of the A-list characters until Daredevil did good business.

brayzie

The way that's worded it makes it seem like Warner Bros was putting out all these different male superhero characters into film (1984-2004).
In those two decades, the last Christopher Reeve Superman came out and it bombed. Then Tim Burton's Batman came out in 1989 and it was a hit, and they kept churning out films until Schumacher's awful Batman & Robin. Steel featuring a black male lead came out right after.
From 1978 to 2004 Warner Bros didn't take very much risks with their superhero properties. The entire time was devoted to two big franchises, Superman and Batman, with the first having two spin-offs (Supergirl and Steel) and the other having one (Catwoman).
If anything, it seems like they were skittish to release anything that wasn't Superman or Batman. Even after all this, they still were putting out the same two characters, Batman and Superman. It wasn't until 2011, 33 year later that Warner Bros attempted to make another different male superhero franchise with Green Lantern.



Fox has only put out four solo superhero franchises: Daredevil, Elektra, Deadpool, and Wolverine. The first two did poorly and so Fox let the rights to one of their male superhero properties (Daredevil) revert back to Disney. Wolverine is a spin-off of the hugely successful X-Men series, and is also arguably Marvel's first or second most famous character. Deadpool is an odd one, property-wise, so I'd like to know how that one got green lit. I'd take a guess, and say it's probably one of the most successful X-Men related characters in the X-Men series (which Fox owns the rights to), next to Wolverine. I don't think any other X-Men character, other than Wolverine, has had as long a running series or number of spin-offs as Deadpool. So maybe the success in comics is part of the reason why it got made.

Mike86

You must not have seen it for a while or something. She doesn’t have a huge role but it’s her introduction to the MCU and she does a fair bit. She’s covert for a good chunk of the film as Tony’s new assistant.

I get that it wouldn’t be a typical superhero film but I still don’t think it would work that well. If anything you got shades of that already in The Winter Soldier anyways. My point is more that for Marvel films you’re going to see superheroes and there have been a decent number of action/spy films starring females (including a number with Scarlett Johansson) that I don’t think a Black Widow movie will stand out as anything particularly special.

brayzie

Who knows.
I'm also surprised that we got an Ant-man, and a Dr. Strange film before Black Widow.
From one point of view, I can see why the shrinking character aspect, and one of magic and sorcery would be more appealing than just a spy character who's not super powered.
But using studio logic, neither of those characters are a known quantity.
The character of Black Widow has been in multiple blockbuster films, and Scarlett Johannson is a successful, well-known actress.
I looked at her solo "action" films. Under the Skin was a box office failure, but Lucy was a hit. In general she's A-list though, right?
But we get Ant-man starring Paul Rudd first??
Yeah, that's a weird one, and does lend credence to the theory that Marvel Studios maybe sexist if they don't have confidence in a female-lead superhero film for a character like Black Widow.
Brie Larson has already been cast as Captain Marvel. Is that for a solo film, or for Infinity War?

Jay G.

There were 6 DC films made during that time, 5 released by WB.

Superman IV: The Quest for Peace
1989 The Return of Swamp Thing
Batman
1992 Batman Returns
1995 Batman Forever
1997 Batman & Robin
Steel

If you add in the first three Superman films that led to them even trying a Supergirl spinoff, they made 8 male superhero films for every female.

Between Catwoman and Wonder Woman, you then have Constantine
Batman Begins, V for Vendetta, Superman Returns, The Dark Knight, Watchmen, The Losers, Green Lantern, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, and Suicide Squad, so 13 films.

And that's not counting the Blade movies from New Line.

Keep in mind Fox and WB are mentioned because they at least released a superheroine movie. Other movies studios haven't even released one, in contrast to multiple male superhero movies.

Jay G.

Under the Skin isn't an "action" movie, it's an art-house film. At its widest release, it was only ever in 86 theaters at once.

brayzie

Ah, okay. I never saw either Lucy or Under the Skin, so I thought they were both mainstream.

Obi-Wanma

Captain Marvel solo film is filming now and comes out in March of next year. She probably appears in Avengers 4 after that, but they're saying that she's not in Infinity War

Jay G.

No, I remember her in the film, but I don't really remember her saying anything. I wouldn't call it a substantial role. She's a background character for the bulk of it, then delivers Stark to Fury, then has a fight scene near the end with Jon Favreau looking on. It wasn't a strong character role, just eye candy at that point.

Mike86

You actually forgot Jonah Hex which is a complete shit pile of a movie but is a DC character. Also 300 and 300: Rise of an Empire.

A few things I’d note are that while the 300 films, Watchmen, The Losers, and V For Vendetta technically fall under the DC or Vertigo brand they aren’t really your typical comic book/superhero films. They’re films based off of graphic novels but aren’t standard fare like Batman or Superman.

Wonder Woman aside they took the most bankable female characters they had and used them in some capacity. Batgirl was used in Batman & Robin and Catwoman was used twice plus Supergirl’s film.

Also I still would place a good chunk of that time span that you’re counting as coming before the comic film “boom” period. It wasn’t commonplace to see every character get a solo film back in the day because they probably wouldn’t have done very well (hence at least part of the reason why the three female comic characters who got films didn’t do very well). Wonder Woman is the only character in my opinion could have and should have had a film earlier. Whedon had a script ready like eleven years ago for her and why WB/DC didn’t pursue it is a mystery. Wouldn’t be the first time regarding DC properties they sat and did nothing though.

brayzie

Why bother bring up Return of Swamp Thing, since that wasn't even released by Warner Bros?
And saying it as "8 male superhero films for every female" seems like creative wording to make Warner Bros look sexist.

Constantine is not a superhero movie, it's an example of a comic book movie. V for Vendetta, eh, I guess. I never considered it superhero but okay.
The Losers is a group film. Suicide Squad is a group film.

Mike86

Maybe not substantial but she’s featured throughout the film. It fit the character at that point as establishing her as a covert agent looking after Tony.

brayzie

Yeah, while we're at it, lets include a western comic book property when the topic is superhero films.

Yeah to most, but Watchmen is a superhero comic property, despite being adult, and it was marketed as a superhero film.
V for Vendetta was never a "superhero" comic to me, just like I never considered "The Crow" to be a superhero comic.
But V for Vendetta came out among the superhero boom, and the way it was marketed, and even alterations to the story seemed to skew towards the superhero-side. And he does have some kind of superhero powers, a costume, so yeah, he fits the criteria. But then again, WB wasn't trying to market it to kids. It was rated R like Watchmen right? And both weren't coming out with action figure toy lines or lunch boxes.



Yeah, that was crazy to wait that long, but had it been earlier maybe it would have been crap. Gal Gadot is really perfect for that role. I wonder who they would have had in mind for the Whedon script.

Maybe Wonder Woman being a poor seller in the comic industry played a part. But I doubt that was it alone. I'm sure studio "logic" played a part in it, because Supergirl and Catwoman bombed. Was the script before or after Catwoman?

And here's a linke to an article about the WW Whedon script.

Mike86

I was just trying to complete the list since it seemed like he was naming everything. I don’t count a number of those as superhero or comic films despite having a DC or Vertigo label. For a lot of them people wouldn’t know other than the label before the films start. Watchmen is a toss up to me. It’s about superheroes but isn’t really a superhero film but rather a commentary on superheroes and comics.

fumanstan

I feel like a few people like to take extremes on the female super hero movie discussion, but my feeling is still that it's not completely about "Hollywood" being sexist and there's a mish mash of multiple reasons as to why there hasn't been more female led super hero movies.

1) As a few posters mentioned, the super hero movie genre has had it's ups and downs and really only been a well Hollywood has gone to in the last 20 years or so (since what, X-Men? Spider-Man?). Yes there was Batman and Superman earlier, but those are also the two most well known comic book characters in the world. It makes sense that Marvel or DC would concentrate on certain popular characters first, even as we get in to the B-List characters. Which leads to...

2) Comic Books and Super Heroes are dominated by male interest, so it makes sense to me that adaptations would target the popular heroes which happen to be male. As is the "action" genre which these movies basically are.

3) I mentioned earlier that a few people seemed to agree with and restated on this page, but I still think Marvel Studios was interested in developing the "Super" portion of the genre, hence characters like Ant-Man and Doctor Strange rather then Black Widow who is just a normal person. Marvel has also been trying to build more characters to expand their universe, so introducing more fanciful ones make sense in the scope of the MCU.

4) I also believe there's truth to execs making poor correlations with movies like Catwoman and Elektra. Those are bad movies, and I have no doubt some want to attribute it to female leads rather then just being shitty movies overall.

5) Hopefully Wonder Woman (and Captain Marvel) and Black Panther keep bringing more adaptations of all types of characters.

It's not as simple as looking at movie ratios and saying that if there's not a 1:1 ration of male and female led movies that there's rampant sexism. There's so much else to be taken in to consideration about the genre, the box office success (or lack of) for multiple characters that affected development regardless of gender, the actual source material, character popularity, etc... and yes, I'd throw sexism in there as one of many reasons.

Mike86

Also the fact is there aren’t as many female superheroes in general. Most of the popular comics were created when they were thought of as something for boys. Yes times have changed but it is what it is. There are some great female characters but the pickings are overall fairly slim, especially looking at it from the perspective of what’s marketable and will sell. It doesn’t take a lot to put together why there aren’t many comic films led by females.

Between DC and Marvel the females I’d say that could realistically pull off a film are Wonder Woman (obviously), Batgirl, Supergirl, Harley Quinn (although she’s a villain), Captain Marvel, and Spider-Gwen (though there you get into a bit weird territory since she’s an alternate universe character).