That Katniss isn't a superhero is not the point. She is the star of a genre action movie that made a tidy - and enviable - bit of money.
According to Box Office Mojo, The Hunger Games
had a budget of $80m. Compare that to $150m for the modestly-budgeted (among supero flicks) Thor
, and I think you'll see that the fact that THG
isn't a superhero movie is very germane to this dicussion.
I don't see how (other than it's absurd Thor had that much money), unless you're suggesting all superhero movies need stupid amounts of money to be made. Since there have been lower budget superhero films and indie films and so on I'm not sure, not every picture need go for Man of Steel style planet annihilation.
Let's not forget that the HG films are based on a series of well-known, mega-selling books, unlike Aeon Flux, Ultraviolet, BloodRayne, Hanna, Elektra, The Host, and Beautiful Creatures, all of which underperformed-to-flopped. Add The Golden Compass and Catwoman in, and it becomes clear that for every Hunger Games and Underworld/Resident Evil female action SF/F success, there's one or two flops to balance them out.
There are tons
of high profile flops with male leads - hell, there were two last year that starred Taylor Kitsch! Add this to the success of the Twilight movies, Host, etc. and there's clearly an
audience for female oriented genre movies.
Wonder Woman, Black Widow and Catwoman are all characters that could be marketed in that way and also are in the latter two cases well known with high profile actresses having played them in blockbuster films already.
You're right they probably won't. And I can sleep easier ignoring the whole craze entirely.