View Single Post
Old September 12 2012, 01:41 PM   #41
Mars
Captain
 
Re: Supergirl Animated Movie

Gotham Central wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
It's ridiculous to abandon all female-led movies because one did poorly. They wouldn't cancel all movies with male leads just because one did poorly. It's gross sexism.
Perhaps, but as a business decision it makes sense. Think about it, the audience for superhero films is overwhelmingly male. Men, in general, tend not to consume genre products with female leads and there are usually not enough female fans to pick up the slack.

A good example of this was SuckerPunch. Most of the people that loved and appreciated what was done in that movie were women. Men, by and large, hated it. This is probably why it took so long for the WW video to make back its money. Wonder Woman is the most famous female superhero in the world...and still she struggles. I doubt a Supergirl or Batgirl film would fare any better. As long as female led properties struggle to get a male audience its going to be harder to convince the studios to fund these films.
Why the automatic assumption that because Wonder Woman didn't do well, neither would supergirl, or because a supergirl movie was produced, it was necessarily the best of all possible supergirl movies? No one wants to blame the writer or producer of the movie if it does poorly, it is always the fault of the character concept because the writers and producers are so conceited in saying no one could write any better than they could. Wonder Woman proves nothing about supergirl, they are different characters.

If someone makes a terrible Lord of the Rings movie, is that J.R. Tolkein's fault? I think Supergirl did poorly because it was given a lousy writer and producer, if they give them better screen writers perhaps they would do better.

Ian Keldon wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
^I'm not ignoring the reality -- I'm refusing to settle for the reality. Discriminatory realities never change
It's not "discriminatory", "mysogynist" or any of the other Womynist labels that get thrown out there. It's about what sells.

Trust me, I know what it's like to have favored characters get screwed because they don't sell. I have the majority of the Byrne WW run. I love good strong female leads like Silver Sable, Widow, Spider-Girl (the real one, aka May Parker).

But they don't sell, and in this climate neither Disney nor Marvel is going to risk much on them. Not because they're women, but because they are, unfortunately, a bad investment.
Maybe they don't sell because he can't write a good story with them, some other writer might write a better story. Its a lame excuse to write a lousy novel and then blame your fictional characters for the book being so lousy.

Ian Keldon wrote: View Post
Christopher wrote: View Post
The reason, according to the comments I've read from female comics fans online, is that the big publishers tend to marginalize and objectify female characters in a way that alienates female readers.
Aren't you one of the people always minimizing the importance of on-line posts by fans?

I've seen plenty of non-objectivizing portrayals of female characters such as Ms Marvel, Rogue, Sue Richards, Silver Sable, etc. For that matter, even characters like Moonstone and Emma Frost. They may be a b-word, but they're strong, confident, empowered and multifaceted

Remember the controversy over the demeaning portrayals of Catwoman, Starfire, and Voodoo in their first New 52 appearances?
Can't comment as I haven't read them.



I disagree...see above.

So it's not right to say that the industry is just responding to a lack of interest from the female audience. It's the other way around -- the audience is driven away by the decisions of the industry. There's plenty of female readership and creative participation in independent comics, but they don't find the top publishers' product as inviting because of the way it treats female characters.
Again, does not square with the facts.

And I should add that there are surely plenty of men, including myself, who would rather see well-rendered, respectfully treated female characters than just ones that pander to adolescent fantasies.
And we have had them. And they don't sell. For that matter, blatantly pandering comics like Tarot:Witch of the Black Rose don't sell all that well either (at least by Big Two standards).
I think if you do female characters, you write them for both make and female readers, you don't try to cater to one or the other, you end up losing both.

Christopher wrote: View Post
Ian Keldon wrote: View Post
^You have to remember, Christopher, that the marketing people for these animated projects ALSO look at the sales performance of the comics themselves as guides. Female-lead comics aren't selling, for whatever reason.
The reason, according to the comments I've read from female comics fans online, is that the big publishers tend to marginalize and objectify female characters in a way that alienates female readers. Remember the controversy over the demeaning portrayals of Catwoman, Starfire, and Voodoo in their first New 52 appearances? There are high points like Batwoman and Renee Montoya and the Birds of Prey, well-portrayed female characters that women readers really respond to, but there are still far too many female characters that are just softcore pandering to teenage males.

So it's not right to say that the industry is just responding to a lack of interest from the female audience. It's the other way around -- the audience is driven away by the decisions of the industry. There's plenty of female readership and creative participation in independent comics, but they don't find the top publishers' product as inviting because of the way it treats female characters.

And I should add that there are surely plenty of men, including myself, who would rather see well-rendered, respectfully treated female characters than just ones that pander to adolescent fantasies.
I agree, one should write a good story about them, its the story that sells. If one writes a bad story, and then says no one can write any better and just attributes it to a lousy character because their slutty female pictures won't sell, that is a cop out.

USS Kongo wrote: View Post
I'd always rather see female superheroes--as well as female characters overall--in films and TV. I've preferred films where women were the lead characters, like Salt, Haywire and Smilla's Sense Of Snow, to name but a few.

I loved the Wonder Woman animated film, and hoped to see sequels from it. Now I see why nothing more came of it. It's a shame that the only way we can get to see Supergirl these days is only if she's guest-starring in a Superman animated movie. I'd love to see Supergirl--not to mention Batgirl--in her own adventure.

Sean
Women are nicer to look at, that's for sure, all they need is a good writer, and writers that are not humble enough to conceded that someone might have written a better story than they did blame the character they write about instead, it makes them feel better to say female characters don't sell than to admit they didn't write a good enough story about them.

Last edited by Neroon; September 12 2012 at 04:44 PM. Reason: Unnecessary consecutive posting
Mars is offline   Reply With Quote