Marvel Phase 4 Will Introduce More Female Heroes - Kevin Feige

[Kane_Steel]

Oh man, the amount of Dislikes regarding the possibility of Female Majority heroes in the MCU;

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

My guess is that some are still upset over the Star Wars situation and fearing the worst here.

Personally, Feige deserves our trust after doing everything right so far 20 films in. He knows how to play the game.

 

[Kane_Steel]

Re: Female characters in Eternals.

I was just making a guess based on all the artwork I've seen on the industry trade websites running with the story of Eternals being scripted.

There are some prominent supporting female heroes, but this guy is the main character in everything I've seen:

Hopefully they can find another Chris Pratt-esque leading man for this. He was Marvel's best get and biggest movie star currently.

 

[Spot261]

Why would we have needed a film with a female lead earlier on?

Is it something that we should have to demonstrate a "need" for?

 

[Kemaiku]

Maybe if they had made Captain Marvel in Phase 1 they wouldn't have to CGI de-age Coulson so much now and saved a good bit of money.

But no, big boys had to punch their way into the franchise first.

Well okay, three of them and Edward Norton but still.

 

[Kane_Steel]

Is it something that we should have to demonstrate a "need" for?

Absolutely. There's no point forcing one in there if it doesn't make narrative sense.

Building the foundations of the MCU with the characters that Feige chose worked out 100 fold. Things may have been less successful if different decisions were made.

Maybe if they had made Captain Marvel in Phase 1 they wouldn't have to CGI de-age Coulson so much now and saved a good bit of money.

But no, big boys had to punch their way into the franchise first.

Well okay, three of them and Edward Norton but still.

If we started with an OP cosmic hero like Captain Marvel from the start, the phases of the MCU would have been drastically different... and likely less successful.

Captain Marvel and her universe is something you build to, and introducing the character before the Battle of New York would have been very premature.

We needed the foundations of Iron man, Cap, Thor and Hulk first, before going cosmic. And Guardians of the Galaxy was a far better choice for introduction to the cosmic world than Captain Marvel.

 

[Spot261]

Absolutely. There's no point forcing one in there if it doesn't make narrative sense.

Building the foundations of the MCU with the characters that Feige chose worked out 100 fold. Things may have been less successful if different decisions were made.

I see.....

Did someone need to justify why we had to have a dozen or so male leads or is that just the default unless there's a narrative reason? If a lead character doesn't absolutely have to be female, they're male?

There's a damned good reason to include female leads, we live in 2018, not 1918. Women are leading members of society too, not just supporting characters. If that's not enough reason for you I'm not sure what to say....

 

[Jinn]

And of course there are more female characters than Captain Marvel and not all of them are cosmic. A Black Widow solo movie could have been a thing, for example.

 

[Kane_Steel]

I see.....

Did someone need to justify why we had to have a dozen or so male leads or is that just the default unless there's a narrative reason? If a lead character doesn't absolutely have to be female, they're male?

There's a damned good reason to include female leads, we live in 2018, not 1918. Women are leading members of society too, not just supporting characters. If that's not enough reason for you I'm not sure what to say....

Yup, because the majority of founding Marvel superheroes are men.

Also building a 50/50 gender audience split for genre films like these that traditionally skewed male was a big accomplishment for Marvel and took time.

Starting with female-led franchises back then would have been a mistake. The timing wasn't right then for such franchises to thrive, and it didn't make sense narratively within the MCU either.

Now, however, the foundations for the MCU are strong. Staple heroes like Cap, IronMan, Hulk, Thor, Spider-Man etc have all had their time. Audience interest for Captain Marvel at this time is strong.

Feige and co. have been making all the right decisions so far, and the numbers show it. "Franchise fatigue" isn't hitting the MCU after 20 films, and this year alone the MCU will do over 4 Billion (that's insane).

They've made all the right decisions with the MCU and have been rewarded for it, including holding off female-led franchises till now.

 

[Kemaiku]

If we started with an OP cosmic hero like Captain Marvel from the start, the phases of the MCU would have been drastically different... and likely less successful.

"Bullshit." - James T. Kirk

 

[Jinn]

Yup, because the majority of founding Marvel superheroes are men.

Also building a 50/50 gender audience split for genre films like these that traditionally skewed male was a big accomplishment for Marvel and took time.

Starting with female-led franchises back then would have been a mistake. The timing wasn't right then for such franchises to thrive, and it didn't make sense narratively within the MCU either.

Now, however, the foundations for the MCU are strong. Staple heroes like Cap, IronMan, Hulk, Thor, Spider-Man etc have all had their time. Audience interest for Captain Marvel at this time is strong.

Feige and co. have been making all the right decisions so far, and the numbers show it. "Franchise fatigue" isn't hitting the MCU after 20 films, and this year alone the MCU will do over 4 Billion (that's insane).

They've made all the right decisions with the MCU and have been rewarded for it, including holding off female-led franchises till now.

I'm still not quite sure why it wouldn't have made narrative sense to have a female-led movie early on.

 

[Kane_Steel]

And of course there are more female characters than Captain Marvel and not all of them are cosmic. A Black Widow solo movie could have been a thing, for example.

Where would a Black Widow solo movie fit in? Each of the phases gave us a trilogy for each of it's lead heroes, with their own world to explore.

Black Widow is a SHIELD agent, but the Cap trilogy already explores that.

Hence why the smart decision was to make Black Widow a part of Team Cap.

MCU doesn't just do random solo films. They do film franchises with sequels.

 

[Jinn]

Where would a Black Widow solo movie fit in? Each of the phases gave us a trilogy for each of it's lead heroes, with their own world to explore.

Black Widow is a SHIELD agent, but the Cap trilogy already explores that.

Hence why the smart decision was to make Black Widow a part of Team Cap.

MCU doesn't just do random solo films. They do film franchises with sequels.

Of course retroactively working in a Black Widow movie wouldn't work, my point is that if they had gone a different route a Black Widow movie (and sequels) would have been a possibility.

 

[Kane_Steel]

"Bullshit." - James T. Kirk

It's true. The stakes would have been far less for Avengers if OP Captain Marvel was there.

The character dynamics would be less engaging. You'd have something that was poorly put together and poorly thought out on par with the DCEU's Justice League.

Of course retroactively working in a Black Widow movie wouldn't work, my point is that if they had gone a different route a Black Widow movie (and sequels) would have been a possibility.

A different route wouldn't have likely been as successful.

For the MCU to be as great as it is now, it wasn't an easy task. Every key decision mattered, and in retrospect, every decision was correct.

Unravelling that tapestry would lead to less than successful results. See the other studios who have attempted franchises like the MCU and failed at it.

 

[Grendelsbayne]

It's definitely female supporting, instead of female leads. We know Captain Marvel is getting a trilogy/franchaise... and maybe Black Widow, but there isn't room for half of the Phase 4 roster to be female-led franchises.

For Phase 4, we already have Black Panther, Thor, Doctor Strange, Ant-Man, Spider-Man, Guardians (led by Pratt/Starlord), plus strong chance of X-Men (Wolverine as the obvious lead), and Fantastic Four (Mr.Fantastic).

I wouldn't even be surprised if Iger and company make them do another Iron Man with RDJ, since the last one did 1.215 Billion. Iron Man is a huge money maker.

I'm not so sure about Thor getting more movies. I'd also say there is very little chance at all that we see anything from the X-men or the F4 before phase 5 (maybe a bit of build-up at the very end of phase 4) and there are several possible obvious leads for the X-men, including Storm. Plus Guardians 3 is confirmed to be the last of Gunn's trilogy and I believe confirmed to not be the last Guardians movie, so Guardians 4 is likely to have a major cast shake-up, maybe even an all new team which could be led by anyone.

And for the record, Marvel took the easy way out focusing solely on the biggest characters in phase 1. I understand the impulse and don't begrudge them their right to make that decision (since it is their money on the line and they certainly proved their capability to create success) but it is total bs to claim that it was the 'smart' move to hold off on any female led movies for over a decade and if they hadn't the universe wouldn't have been as successful. The truth is that if marvel could make Guardians and Ant-man work, they could make almost any character work. And yeah, it would've led to a different story than what we got, but different does not mean worse or in any way unsellable.

 

[Spot261]

Yup, because the majority of founding Marvel superheroes are men.

Were men, past tense. Perhaps you should read the source material more, your ignorance is showing.

Also building a 50/50 gender audience split for genre films like these that traditionally skewed male was a big accomplishment for Marvel and took time.

Yes, primarily based on the gender balance already established over the past twenty years in the comics. You don't think the movie demographic exists in isolation of that surely?

Starting with female-led franchises back then would have been a mistake. The timing wasn't right then for such franchises to thrive, and it didn't make sense narratively within the MCU either.

Why wouldn't it make sense? What was wrong with the time? We are talking about the early 2000s, not the 1800s

Now, however, the foundations for the MCU are strong. Staple heroes like Cap, IronMan, Hulk, Thor, Spider-Man etc have all had their time. Audience interest for Captain Marvel at this time is strong.

Always would have been, she's one of Marvel's biggest properties.

Feige and co. have been making all the right decisions so far, and the numbers show it.

Because the numbers are the only arbiter of right and wrong? In an age and a medium which both purpote to endorse equality eighteen male led films seems balanced for a franchise whose source material now has no such bias and whose moves towards equality are what the MCU's success is in no small part derived from?

 

[mos6507]

Maybe if they had made Captain Marvel in Phase 1

Phase 1? Why?

As far as I'm concerned the only Captain Marvel of any worth to pop culture is owned by DC and looks like this:

The Marvel one has never had any sort of pop cultural weight behind it and will be trying to win over audiences effectively from scratch.

Marvel pulled a coup by making the obscure Gardians a hit, but that wasn't the first Phase 1 property either, was it?

Whatever's going on in Marvel these days has little relevance to the average filmgoer. The average filmgoer is familiar with how Marvel was formed in the 60s and early 70s. Today's comic book audience is little more than a rounding-error and pretty insignificant to how these movies are made.

 

[Kemaiku]

Wow.

 

[Jinn]

Phase 1? Why?

As far as I'm concerned the only Captain Marvel of any worth to pop culture is owned by DC and looks like this:

The Marvel one has never had any sort of pop cultural weight behind it and will be trying to win over audiences effectively from scratch.

Marvel pulled a coup by making the obscure Gardians a hit, but that wasn't the first Phase 1 property either, was it?

Well, Iron Man wasn't quite as obscure as Captain Marvel or the not just recently formed Guardians, but he wasn't exactly well known in the general public.

 

[Kane_Steel]

Of course retroactively working in a Black Widow movie wouldn't work, my point is that if they had gone a different route a Black Widow movie (and sequels) would have been a possibility.

A different route wouldn't have likely been as successful.

For the MCU to be as great as it is now, it wasn't an easy task. Every key decision mattered, and in retrospect, every decision was correct.

Unravelling that tapestry would lead to less than successful results. See the other studios who have attempted franchises like this and failed at it.

I'm not so sure about Thor getting more movies

Thor 4 will happen. Taika and Chris are on fire after Ragnarok and up for more, plus they introduced Korg, Valkyrie and still need to resolve the New Asgard story. Thor Ragnarok was too much of a hit to abandon it now.

it is total bs to claim that it was the 'smart' move to hold off on any female led movies for over a decade and if they hadn't the universe wouldn't have been as successful. The truth is that if marvel could make Guardians and Ant-man work, they could make almost any character work. And yeah, it would've led to a different story than what we got, but different does not mean worse or in any way unsellable.

Different does mean worse when the chances of joining the 2 billion dollar club, which Marvel just joined for a film are VERY slim.

If Marvel had done anything differently in the previous phases, we likely wouldn't be at this level of success now.

You're underestimating how difficult it is to accomplish what only Marvel Studios has accomplished.

 

[mos6507]

Well, Iron Man wasn't quite as obscure as Captain Marvel or the not just recently formed Guardians, but he wasn't exactly well known in the general public.

A big problem is Disney couldn't use Spiderman, Fantastic Four, or X-Men. After you cross them off the list I'd say Disney made the right choice in the priority list.