View Single Post
Old July 24 2013, 02:13 PM   #334
Fleet Captain
TREK_GOD_1's Avatar
Location: Escaped from Delta Vega
Re: Captain America: The Winter Soldier pre-release thread

Christopher wrote: View Post
As I said, it's not exclusively about Black Widow. It boggles my mind that Anne Hathaway didn't get a Catwoman spinoff as soon as audiences and critics raved about her breakout performance. She was the most consistently well-received part of The Dark Knight Rises, praised even by critics who disliked the rest of the film, and there was a lot of buzz about how she deserved a spinoff -- yet there doesn't seem to have been any serious studio interest in one.
To the general audience, Catwoman is known as a villain, and for a film (and its expenses) that is a gamble. Even in the native format, how many bad guys have successfully headlined a comic? Nowhere near the level of the heroes. That's not just because of lacking creative teams, but perception: most only want to see comic-based villains as elements in a hero story.

In my opinion, a Catwoman film is spreading DC's new movie capital too thin, when it should be reserved for their A list heroes.

And we've just heard about a long-term DC development slate that includes Sandman and Aquaman, but no mention of Wonder Woman, the third-most important character in the entire DC pantheon.
The WW issue makes no sense--but I think the problem rests with the various ideas we have seen, such as the thankfully cancelled TV series or some of Whedon's ideas for a film: if it cannot be revisionist in one way or another, WB will not touch it, as the classic WW is not "appealing" to those still suffering from knee-jerk reactions (possibly politcally correct) to the memory of Lynda Carter.

The problem with the argument that female-led movies aren't profitable is that it's based on an underlying double standard. If a movie with a male lead bombs, nobody ever blames that failure on the sex of the movie's lead; they recognize that it had a bad script or bad acting or bad directing or bad promotion or whatever. But when films like Elektra and Catwoman bombed, the studios immediately jumped to the conclusion that they failed because they had female leads -- which is insane when you consider how many enormous flaws both movies had that are far more obvious explanations for their failure. (I actually kind of like Elektra, but I recognize it's got a lot of weaknesses and its appeal is cultish at best.) It's a spurious correlation. They're not deriving a conclusion from the evidence, they're selectively interpreting the evidence as validation for their pre-existing assumptions. The exclusion of women came first. The financial argument is just the excuse for perpetuating it.

You can take that position, but remember, action and/or fantasy films are overwhelmingly supported by males--they are the key target. To studios, they appear to be willing to take more chances on other male character films in the wake of bombs, because they know one (or more) have a chance to score big (particularly if based on well established male character sources).

Female-helmed films are not as appealing, so when they fail, it simply justifies the lack of investment in other female character movies, as they are not seen as potential blockbusters in the first place--a revealing comment on audience perception, more than that of producers.
" be like God, you have the power to make the world anything you want it to be."
TREK_GOD_1 is offline   Reply With Quote