Waiting for the Right Moment for a Female-Led Superhero Movie?

Just found this article on the Yahoo Movies site:

Waiting for the Right Moment for a Female-Led Superhero Movie? How About Now?

It contains a nice review of recent female-led superhero movies, together with some comments about what might be in the works at Marvel and Spiderman, and what SHOULD be in the works, and a pretty good argument about why now would be a good time.

Needless to say, I agree with everything this writer said.

I think the problem with Female-Led Superhero movies is they were all written by horny, nerdy men 20-60 years ago.

Don't get me wrong, I love hot women with giant breasts in little clothing flying around and beating up bad guys, but to make something like that main-stream is not easy. You have to either 1) clean up their outfits such as what they are doing with Wonder Woman and Scarlet Witch, or 2) make something brand new like what Luc Besson does (which does not always work). I'm not saying I agree with society as I would LOVE to see Scarlet Witch using telekinesis and hexes while her DDDs bounce around in her red spandex, or a panty-shot of a 20-something SuperGirl as she flies away, or Black Cat's SUPER HOT neckline, but society is a bastard. If our iconic super-ladies had been dressed more like Batman or Thor with more average size breasts, I honestly think we'd have seen those movies by now. They are great characters and deserve the screen time, but I think Hollywood is honestly scared to embrace the look of those characters created in an age when objectifying women was the norm (not that we don't do it today... just people get a lot more shit for it) ... not to mention all the innuendo of characters like Wonder Woman.

In addition, it is much MUCH more politically correct to objectify men. Look at how many times Hugh Jackman takes his shirt off or Thor's EXTREMELY gratuitous shirtless scene in Dark World. Even more, Peggy Carter didn't care for little Stevie Rogers until he became BIG Steve Rogers.

...

But then again, we have been given a Catwoman movie ... maybe that cursed things? Black cats do that (I'm referring to her outfit, not Halle Barry).

This made me think of something that has effected my writing. Its an interview with Kurt Busieck about what defines a superhero.

www.avclub.com/article/kurt-busiek-13698

He came up with a list of five things

superpowers, a costume, a code name, a mission, and a milieu.

If you have 3 of them you have a superhero.

Reason i bring it up is this: i am not sure we don't have female superhero movies.

Hunger Games is probabbly the most sucseful series around-its about a woman named Katniss living in the 26th century america divided into 13 districts(her Mileau), who is called the Mockingjay(codename and the title of the third movie), She has a mission-defeat the captiol. A lot of effort is given in the movie to giving her costumes-which you know look a lot inspired by batman type suits...No Superpowers(well not really other then she is really good at archery)...so we have 4 out of 5.

Frozen is the story of Eliza- The Snow Queen(codename used a couple of times) who lives in vaguely 17 century Norway(her milleau), who puts on an elaborate costume in the length of a jump cut-when her superpowers(ability to generate snow and ice) come to light. She kind of lacks a mission--but well it kind of devolops over the course of the story.

These are by the way the 1 and 3 most popular movies last year.

You also get Divergent(superpowers-she can think is the joke but shes resistant to mind control), Lucy( but thats been covered), and stuff like Mortal Instruments(which came and went).

The point-these are by some defeintion superhero-but i think to a degree its generitive. We think of the Hulk for example as a superhero,but he never does anything specifically superhoic, hes a monster -but hes a comic book character. If Katniss had been a character in a 90s marvel book she would be a superhero.

This why for example Barb Wire is a superheroine when people look at her movie- a comic book character though i think really she has 2, maybe 3 of the elements in the movie.

To me i think the anwser is-there is a reluctance in hollywood to base female lead movies off comicbooks, which a diffrent thing. I think thats to a degree is marketing- All but lucy i mentioned -well marketed at young women. Its easier to base movies for them off books then comics-which is what i think part of the reluctance in getting girls to want to see something from a traditionally male dominated space-which today yes is mostly marketed at 40 years old then teens

I do think its going to happen-certainly is-but yeah--i am not sure its the end all be all here-becuse i do think the basic idea of it-a female protaginist lead movie with some unsual ability....

(Wait a second Twilight. Girl-resistant to Telepathy, has the power to cancel superpowers, in washington..no costume, no codename, no real mision[going to discount get turned into a vampire]...phew).

is something your going to keep seeing in pop culture in what ever form it is, and should be celebrated.

Interesting thoughts... I would say that my definition of a superheroine/supervillaniness is a bit narrower... the superpowers are a hard requirement for me. In that regard, Black Widow, Barb Wire, Katniss don't make the grade in my book. SIF makes the grade with her super strength alone. So does Lucy, although I didn't like the movie overall. Mission and milieu are vital. Codename and costume are optional in my book. A bit too comic-bookish for me. So I guess I'm on a slightly different page.

I created Velorians to be super heroines, but avoided code names and costumes (for the most part). Superpowers, mission and milieu are enough as long as superpowers are present as #1. OK, and looking stunningly cute. Why the hell not. It's fantasy, where all the superwomen are stunningly beautiful and ridiculously fit and can bend steel in their bare hands and the supermen are built like Olympic swimmers and supersex is what happens if those two get together. I mean, if you're going to ditch reality, then leave it all behind. So I guess I'm adding super-cute and devastatingly sexy to the requirements list. (Probably not politically correct, but screw it. I'm not a millennial by a long shot.)

castor wrote: This made me think of something that has effected my writing. Its an interview with Kurt Busieck about what defines a superhero.

www.avclub.com/article/kurt-busie k-13698

He came up with a list of five things

superpowers, a costume, a code name, a mission, and a milieu.

If you have 3 of them you have a superhero.

Reason i bring it up is this: i am not sure we don't have female superhero movies.

Hunger Games is probabbly the most sucseful series around-its about a woman named Katniss living in the 26th century america divided into 13 districts(her Mileau), who is called the Mockingjay(codename and the title of the third movie), She has a mission-defeat the captiol. A lot of effort is given in the movie to giving her costumes-which you know look a lot inspired by batman type suits...No Superpowers(well not really other then she is really good at archery)...so we have 4 out of 5.

Frozen is the story of Eliza- The Snow Queen(codename used a couple of times) who lives in vaguely 17 century Norway(her milleau), who puts on an elaborate costume in the length of a jump cut-when her superpowers(ability to generate snow and ice) come to light. She kind of lacks a mission--but well it kind of devolops over the course of the story.

These are by the way the 1 and 3 most popular movies last year.

You also get Divergent(superpowers-she can think is the joke but shes resistant to mind control), Lucy( but thats been covered), and stuff like Mortal Instruments(which came and went).

The point-these are by some defeintion superhero-but i think to a degree its generitive. We think of the Hulk for example as a superhero,but he never does anything specifically superhoic, hes a monster -but hes a comic book character. If Katniss had been a character in a 90s marvel book she would be a superhero.

This why for example Barb Wire is a superheroine when people look at her movie- a comic book character though i think really she has 2, maybe 3 of the elements in the movie.

To me i think the anwser is-there is a reluctance in hollywood to base female lead movies of comicbooks, which a diffrent thing. I think thats to a degree is marketing- All but lucy i mentioned y-well marketed at young women. Its easier to base movies for them off books then comics-which is what i think part of the reluctance in getting girls to want to see something from a traditionally male dominated space-which today yes is mostly marketed at 40 years old then teens

I do think its going to happen-certainly is-but yeah--i am not sure its the end all be all here-becuse i do think the basic idea of it-a female protaginist lead movie with some unsual ability....

(Wait a second Twilight. Girl-resistant to Telepathy, has the power to cancel superpowers, in washington..no costume, no codename, no real mision[going to discount get turned into a vampire]...phew).

is something your going to keep seeing in pop culture in what ever form it is, and should be celebrated.

jj_manus wrote: Just found this article on the Yahoo Movies site:

Waiting for the Right Moment for a Female-Led Superhero Movie? How About Now?

It contains a nice review of recent female-led superhero movies, together with some comments about what might be in the works at Marvel and Spiderman, and what SHOULD be in the works, and a pretty good argument about why now would be a good time.

Needless to say, I agree with everything this writer said.

Yes, I agree with everything the writer said too.

Marvel, especially, has no excuse for their failure to make a female led superhero movie. I mean, at this point, the brand name alone would bring in the audience. Kevin Feige's excuses that they have to "get the timing right" and that they "have too many franchises to juggle" are looking more and more like blow offs and that they really aren't interested in trying one.

I guess they want DC to go first with Wonder Woman (which should have happened by now. A gross neglect in it's own right) and see how it does before taking the plunge.

The man who is the "guru" behind developing the Flash and Arrow (and many other shoes -- Greg Berlanti), and who has the portfolio of DC characters under license, has stated that he wants to shift his focus to DC women now. The article below is very encouraging, albeit without specifics of which DC women he's going to work with first.

He's the main guy in charge, the guru of TV production for DC characters, and his track record includes No Ordinary Family, Dawson’s Creek, Everwood, Brothers & Sisters, Jack & Bobby, Eli Stone, and Political Animals, Flash, Arrow among many, many others, so this guy is a well-spring of credibility.

www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/0...ehind-the-flash.html

Given what he says (and who he is), I'd say our time is coming.

Shadar

I was encouraged by this in the article:

"he’s nearly doubled his workload, striking deals for three new series in development for next season: Blindspot, an FBI thriller for NBC; the supernatural procedural The Things They Left Behind, based on a Stephen King short story, for CBS; and most exciting of all, a third DC superhero show, Supergirl, which CBS has already given a series commitment to (and which he teases below)."

I missed the tease, but I was encouraged by the author's "most exiting of all" comment. But as you say, unfortunately he didn't talk about it in the interview.

Still, this is very encouraging, and as you say, WAY better than David Kelly.

lfan wrote: Great article though was a little disappointed the interviewer ask about seemingly EVERY OTHER project that Berlanti had worked on (past, present, and future) EXCEPT Supergirl! However, it does seem like he's excited about it and definitely seems a fan of the genre and comic books in general. I think we're much better off with Berlanti than David Kelly!

ElF

There were brief periods when Ms. Marvel was interesting, but overall I agree with you. Which is why I was mostly a DC comics reader.

Woodclaw wrote:

jdrock24 wrote:

jj_manus wrote: Just found this article on the Yahoo Movies site:

Waiting for the Right Moment for a Female-Led Superhero Movie? How About Now?

It contains a nice review of recent female-led superhero movies, together with some comments about what might be in the works at Marvel and Spiderman, and what SHOULD be in the works, and a pretty good argument about why now would be a good time.

Needless to say, I agree with everything this writer said.

Yes, I agree with everything the writer said too.

Marvel, especially, has no excuse for their failure to make a female led superhero movie. I mean, at this point, the brand name alone would bring in the audience. Kevin Feige's excuses that they have to "get the timing right" and that they "have too many franchises to juggle" are looking more and more like blow offs and that they really aren't interested in trying one.

I guess they want DC to go first with Wonder Woman (which should have happened by now. A gross neglect in it's own right) and see how it does before taking the plunge.

I think that there's at least one good excuse: Marvel Comics never produced any decent superheroine comic in at least 20 years, so the reference material is scarce at best. Then again they made Guardians of the Galaxy starting from a series that tanked multiple times.

Here’s something to think about. Rumors ... but a plausible one.

www.ibtimes.co.uk/avengers-age-ultron-en...ctor-strange-1467559

Marvel has done well with their MCU by keeping it “logical and grounded” (Gods are really just aliens, magic is advanced science, and so on), now you are tossing in two characters who can just “fly”? Thor’s ability to fly is explained by his hammer and he never ‘floats’, but I suspect Captain Marvel will be able to levitate just like Superman in Man of Steel.

But thanks to Guardians of The Galaxy, they have opened the gates for Ms. Danvers’ origin story relating to the Kree, so its possible. Obviously we know they are doing Doctor Strange, but maybe Captain Marvel needs her own MCU movie. I’d be on board with that. She’s not overtly sexual with giant boobs in your face. She’s quite a feminist in fact.

She has my vote.