comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Maude
  8. The Braiser

What's with the name?

Allow us to explain.

Today in things that make us scream incoherently

Updated: Marvel Circling Black Widow Solo Film


YAAAAAAAA I mean. *ahem* Black Widow says: “About damn time.”

After seeding the rumor (with a healthy wiggle word) a week ago, Marvel is talking a whole lot about developing a solo Black Widow film that will continue a strong arc for the character as will be set up in Captain America: The Winter Soldier and The Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Marvel Entertainment president Kevin Feige spoke to Variety about how tentative plans for the film to grow out of Marvel Cinematic Universe events that will begin in the upcoming Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and mentioned that Black Widow’s role in Age of Ultron, as it has been shaping up in development, is one that is ripe for exploring in a solo film.

Widow’s part in [Age of Ultron] is very big. We learn more about her past and learn more about where she came from and how she became in that film. The notion of exploring that even further in her own film would be great, and we have some development work with that. When we meet the Avengers at the top of ‘Age of Ultron,’ it’s a very different landscape than we left them at the end of the first film. Partially, that’s because we love the rhythm that the comicbooks have developed — each of the characters appear in their runs, occasionally they get together for a big event or crossover series, they part again, and then they come back together again.

Variety noted that Chris Evans, Johansson’s co-star in Winter Soldier, has also been quoted confirming the character’s significant role in that film.

At this point, there is no confirmed news about writers or directors attached to the project, but for my part, I hope that Marvel takes this opportunity to hire their first female director for a movie in the current MCU. This would be the fifth confirmed Marvel film for Scarlett Johansson, who began appearing as Black Widow in Iron Man 2. Feige also did not speak to whether the Black Widow film would be a part of Marvel’s Phase 3, films that take place after Age of Ultron up through The Avengers 3, but given how he’s talking about the plotline for the movie growing organically from Winter Soldier and Age of Ultron, I’d say it seems to be implied. That would give Marvel’s a Phase 3 that currently consists of Ant-Man, a developing Doctor Strange film, a third Captain America film, a third Avengers film, and our first Marvel Cinematic Universe movie featuring a female character in the lead, a Black Widow film.

(via Variety.)

TAGS: | | |


  • blu girl

    Give me a release date or give me death!

  • http://agirlwhoisageek.com/ Deborah K.

    Fingers crossed it takes place in Budapest with Hawkeye.

  • http://bcauseboomerangs.tumblr.com/ Thaddottir

    *Insert ecstatic fangirl meltdown here.*

  • http://active-voice.net/beckyallen/ allreb

    AAAAAAAAAH;kljasdfl;jkasdl;fjkas;fd

    I mean what, I’m fine.

  • http://thescienceofobsession.tumblr.com/ R.O.U.S.

    HELL TO THE YES.

  • John W

    I wonder what other heroes/villains will make an appearance in her movie?

  • javakoala

    *fangirl flail*

  • http://twitter.com/amydieg Beastbrarian

    *nonsensical screaming*

  • Alan Kistler

    I’m gonna say, I don’t want Hawkeye in it. Haweye’s fun, but I want to see Natasha rock out on her own. At most, some SHIELD support staff if she needs to make a call.

  • http://www.angelahighland.com/ Angela Korra’ti (Highland)

    Oh HELL YES. THANK YOU Marvel! Please accept more of my money. :D

  • http://www.gradientcomics.com/ Rob Payne

    I would think Hawkeye is definitely going to be in it — and Renner really deserves something more to work with that character. How much Hawkeye is the question.

  • Will Beaty

    I agree, but I feel like we’re going to have to expect some y chromosome star cameo. Nick Fury, Bucky, maybe Steve.

  • Anonymous

    This article is from last week and it’s basically them talking about the POSSIBILITY once again.

  • Anonymous

    Dude, this isn’t confirmation, this is the source of the very rumor you cite from a week ago. That Variety article is from 2/14.

  • TheChief

    Awesome! I have enjoyed her solo comic currently out. Having a spy thriller in the MCU could be pretty cool.

    Hopefully this is a sign of things to come with the MCU. I would love to hear about Danvers having a movie in the future.

  • http://www.geekrex.com/ Alexander Knox

    Honestly, unless this gets the final slot in 2018 before Avengers 3, it’s unlikely this is happening until Phase 4, if at all. Ant-Man, Doctor Strange (which already has a director short-list), Guardians 2, Thor 3, and Cap 3 seem to have the rest all sewn up.

  • http://www.lawlessgentile.com/ Ali Miller

    o/ :D *CONFETTI*

  • http://www.gradientcomics.com/ Rob Payne

    I’ll take a James Bond-style movie with a Baron Zemo as a Dr. No type baddie.

  • Anonymous
  • http://www.lawlessgentile.com/ Ali Miller

    If it’s a role that’s going to “grow out” of Age of Ultron, as Feige stated, then they’ll probably find a way to make it happen in Phase 3.

  • http://active-voice.net/beckyallen/ allreb

    Although, that Variety article does say this: “It’s unclear whether Marvel hopes to have a Black Widow movie become part of its third phase of films.”
    So… is there an additional source on this? I 1000000% hope it is a done deal, but that still sounds pretty hedge-y.

  • Charlie

    This makes me so happy, I can’t wait! (That first line of the article made me think of Rainbow Dash ‘Professionalism Miss Harshwinny!’ haha)

  • Gerald Kirby

    The ball’s in your count now, DC. When did you say we’ll be seeing that solo Wonder Woman movie, hmm?

  • http://www.geekrex.com/ Alexander Knox

    maybe, but they have to nail down the dates and get pre-production rolling, which the other films are already doing in some capacity or another. Like I said, that might be the mystery 2018 movie though, its most likely either that, Captain Marvel, or The Inhumans.

  • http://twitter.com/monkeyrotica monkeyrotica

    I just hope the action figure doesn’t have a DDD cup and an 11″ waist.

  • Adrian

    Sweet! This adds to my guess that Marvel will expand to three films a year in the near future. At least I hope that’s how they do it. Good on Marvel, though. They are riding high this week with all the Guardians news and now this.
    It’s also good business sense in that Black Widow fits perfectly into a spy thriller and those types of films are less expensive. I’m kind of meh on Hawkeye, though. He’s cool and all but I think he’s going to bite it in Age of Ultron.

  • Adrian

    The only figures I look at are the Hot Toys Sixth Scales and those things are always perfectly accurate. Too bad they’re so expensive.

  • Troy Lenze

    I kind of want it to be her rescuing Hawkeye. Some kind of gender-swapped Die Hard or something.

  • Charlie

    Yeah I’m pretty much in love with ‘The Engineer’ statue of Tony Stark and I don’t even like Iron Man that much xD

  • Charlie

    Oh my god that would be so cool.

  • blu girl

    So far no one has said anything new from what Kevin Feige said a week ago. A BW film is in development……. I can’t get excited until Marvel annouces a production date or a release date, etc.

  • Adrian

    Loki’s was the first Hot Toy I ever remember seeing. That thing was so accurate I couldn’t stop staring at photos.

  • Charlie

    yeah it’s gorgeous, they are so detailed.

  • Adrian

    Unfortunately, we may have to wait until Comic-Con for that since that’s where Marvel likes to announce its projects.

    They didn’t announce any last year because they wanted to concentrate on filling us in on the Phase 2 films.

  • MeatyStakes

    Have to disagree on principle. Budapest will never live up to the expectations and it’s better left as a “noodle incident”

  • blu girl

    Agreed. We’ll see what happens at Comic Con. Once a movie is actually confirmed I’ll celebrate.

  • http://runt.org/ Adrian

    You and I remember Budapest very differently.

  • javakoala

    They should title it “Black Widow: How to Efficiently Save the World without Self-Pitying Angst”

  • Anonymous

    I want this to be a Black Widow, the Cavalry, and Agent Hill Charlie’s Angels sort of thing.

  • javakoala

    We all know Wonder Woman is conceptually difficult. Raccoon with a machine gun? No problem. Ass-kicking role model who’s origin’s are steeped in Greek Mythology? That’s too hard. Hollywood would never make movies based on Greek myths, Never mind one starring a lady.

  • javakoala

    MAKE IT SO.

  • Anonymous

    Captain Marvel should get the solo movie! Black Widow has always been a supporting character – she didn’t even get her first solo book until 2005 even though she was introduced in 1964.

  • Anonymous

    I’m sorry, but I think that’s the subtitle of Agent Peggy Carter.

  • Lisa Liscoumb

    This!!! Marvel, are you listening?

  • Anonymous

    Hopefully Gal Gadot knocks it out of the park in MofS 2!

  • Lisa Liscoumb

    Y’know, MS, I was a huge proponent of the “I want Budapest” faction until I read your reply. You’re totally right. Now at best, I wouldn’t mind seeing a quick flashback to a part of it in the BW movie.

  • Sarah Dompkowski

    How about a movie about her origin story WITHOUT Hawkeye, and then a sequel with Hawkeye called “Black Widow: Budapest.”

  • http://www.TheGeekiary.com Angel

    Mary Sue, I love you, but the article linked here is a week old. Can we get some confirmation from a more recent source? Do you have insider information that isn’t published yet?

  • Troy Lenze

    I guess a gender-swapped Taken is what the kids would call what I was thinking, actually. I’d love to see Black Widow show Liam how it’s done.

  • Anonymous

    At this point, doesn’t it seem like “Age of Ultron” is going to be, like, ten hours long.

    Or terrible.

    While Whedon excels at managing large casts, this is starting to feel really out of control.

    “It’s all fifteen characters you already love! Plus eleven more! Plus we’re REALLY fleshing out the backstory of one of the least important members….plus this, plus that…etc. etc.”

  • Anonymous

    They should become genetically merged like “The Fly” into a new character known as – “Blackeye”!

  • Natalie Willoughby

    SERIOUSLY! I want to know WTF happened in Budapest.

  • Ryan Colson

    With her sporting that arrow necklace in CAWS, and Renner not doing much, he will probably guest star at some point..

  • Anonymous

    I don’t think this is anywhere close to being far along as you guys seem to think it is.

  • Ryan Colson

    Seriously, we have been excited for Black Panther awhile and i will be shocked of he or widow get real films made.

  • Ryan Colson

    african in panther garb is hard as well. and a solo wifos film since nothing here confirms one, either.

  • Ryan Colson

    she seems kinda angsty with RED ON HER LEDGER even if it was manipulation. even feige suggests that.

  • Ryan Colson

    pretty sure until confirmed it is fan squealing. nothing suggests it will happen.

  • Ryan Colson

    1999 was pretty solo, even if she fought skanky widow.. it was tashas first.

  • javakoala

    Bro, do you even sarcasm?

  • http://www.gradientcomics.com/ Rob Payne

    She does have a very specific set of skills.

  • KF

    Good. And from a reasonably reliable source, as well.

    (And I’m not sure what the article being from last week has anything to do with it being less believable. Development takes a while. I’m sure not much has changed since last week.)

  • http://www.justplainsomething.com JustPlainSomething

    “Damn it, Clint, AGAIN!?”

  • http://www.justplainsomething.com JustPlainSomething

    But perhaps flashbacks to Budapest? Just little snippets of what went down so that we can still have a general “fill in the blanks, audience” enjoyment of it?

  • http://www.justplainsomething.com JustPlainSomething

    But hey, just from the little we’ve gotten, that’s could be some well-deserved angst on her part. She HAS done some terrible things and her new outlook comes with a hell of a lot of guilt.

  • Anonymous

    The Winter Guard: Come for Natsha’s presumed dead husband, stay for Ursa Major!

  • KF

    Yeah, “in development” is a pretty vague term. Still, better that than nothing.

  • Anonymous

    Let’s hope they don’t invent a male father-mentor-figure who is teaching her her skills or a daughter/son character she needs to save and this way discover her “feelings”.

    I don’t care for the gender of the director. As long as it is the best man or woman for the job I couldn’t care less. For me it’s all about the quality of the movie not the gender of the director.

    And I still want that Ms Marvel movie with Katee Sackhoff, damn! ;-)

  • Anonymous

    The thing I can see as being tricky with Wonder Woman isn’t that her origin is tied to Greek mythology, but that her conception as a character is tied very closely to the 1940s novelty of a “strong female character”. In the wrong hands, she’s an exaggerated stereotype, almost caricature, of the idea of “feminine strength”. In the wrong hands, a Wonder Woman movie could, even if it sticks closely to the source material, be disastrous and even terribly sexist.
    She’s an Amazon. She’s a warrior and/or diplomat (writers can never seem to agree on that point). She’s from a society without men (because that’s how you get a strong woman, apparently) which has somehow (according to some writers) maintained a warrior culture even after a couple millennia without an enemy to fight. There is a challenge built into trying to make Wonder Woman more than just a “hey check it out it’s a superhero and THIS ONE IS A LADYPERSON” character in a “who cares if it makes sense” movie. In the 1940s, the mere introduction of a character like Wonder Woman was revolutionary, but it’s not the 1940s anymore. We live in a post-Wonder Woman world. We live in a post-Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor and Buffy Summers world. A great Wonder Woman movie could be made, but to underestimate the challenge in doing it right is kind of setting oneself up for doing it wrong. I for one wouldn’t want the Wonder Woman movie to end up like the Green Lantern movie (which failed to figure out something as simple as that it should be the story of a rookie space cop rather than a generic superhero yarn) or Man of Steel (which presented Superman as a symbol of hope by having him be the super powerful alien who comes to earth, smashes a city up and kills a guy because his dad said it’s okay to let people die sometimes).
    As it currently stands, I don’t trust DC to make a good Wonder Woman movie. And there’s a lot at stake for it to not suck.

    Raccoon with a machine gun is timeless. It has never been more or less of a crazy concept than it is now. That can’t really be compared to Wonder Woman, who had a very specific function in 1941 that was very much tied to the state of progress at the time. There’s still progress to be made, obviously, but things have changed significantly since 1941, and Wonder Woman would by necessity have to be written accordingly, without losing the core elements that make her Wonder Woman. That is the tricky part. I’m not sure that’s what DC/WB mean when they say tricky, but that’s the bit that would require some actual work as opposed to just going “I dunno, just make it dark; it worked for Batman” which seems to be what they did with both Man of Steel and Arrow (and attempted with the David E. Kelley Wonder Woman pilot, which was atrocious).
    Rocket Raccoon is easy. He doesn’t have 73 years of sociopolitical progress (that he helped push forward) and a bunch of clueless producers standing in his way. He’s just a talking mustelid with a bad attitude and a gun. Get a crazy enough director and that’ll sort itself out. With Wonder Woman, you don’t want crazy. Trust me. That way lies badness.

    Black Widow is also a lot easier to make a movie of than Wonder Woman. But DC has characters like that, too, that they’re not even considering due to not being household names. Black Canary could be a really cool movie. As could Batgirl. And those are even within the realm of “dark stuff” that they seem to love so much. But they’re cowards who only want to bet on the big names.

  • Travis

    Marvel has Daredevil back now. I’ve always liked Matt and Natasha together.

  • Emily Neenan

    Dammit, Susana! Don’t take me on these rollercoasters of emotion! I saw the “Breaking: Marvel Commits to Black Widow Solo Movie” link on facebook and shouted “YES!!” so loud I scared my partner, and it’s still at rumours? You need nerves of a reformed Russian assassin turned superhero spy to deal with that kind of whiplash!

  • Travis

    Pfft. You don’t expect them to actually vet their sources, do you?

    How do you expect them to write stories about how disappointed they are that there’s no Black Widow movie in the works if they don’t spread the baseless rumor in the first place?

  • odango atama

    About damn time. About damn time. About damn time. About damn time. About damn time. About damn time. About damn time. About damn time. About damn time. About damn time. About damn time. About damn time. About damn time. About damn time. About damn time.

  • http://badmouth.net/ John Marcotte

    She can be done very well. The new solo series that just started is excellent, and the zipper on her costume has remained up at all times.

  • http://valiantknife.org/ Alex

    Actually, Black Widow was one of the first (the first) women of Marvel to get an ongoing solo feature, in 1970′s Amazing Adventures. She’s had some kind of solo story published every decade since.

  • Anonymous

    Okay she did get her first solo in eight issues of Amazing Adventures in 1970. Nonetheless while Captain Marvel didn’t get her’s until 1977 as Ms. Marvel she had more issues and had actual super-powers, therefore she still deserve a solo film way more then Black Widow…who IMO works better as a supporting character.

  • http://valiantknife.org/ Alex

    I’m not really interested on a “who deserves a movie more” debate; I’d like to see a Carol Danvers film and a Natasha Romanov film and I don’t see these as competing interests. A good Black Widow movie would think instead of punch, a good Captain Marvel movie would punch often, and always upward. They’d be very different films operating in different corners of the Marvel Universe, it’s only by reducing both women to their gender and forcing them into some kind of weird imaginary Highlander competition that this debate comes up.
    But if your thesis statement is “Black Widow is so uninteresting it took her 40 years to appear as a solo hero” and it actually took six, well, yeah, I’m gonna point that out.

  • Anonymous

    Agreed and thanks for point it out. Also I never said she’s uninteresting, I like her and always have. I just think she’s always worked best as a supporting character, which isn’t a bad thing.

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    Regarding the part about ‘a race of warriors despite a lack of of conflict for millenia’ portion, back in the Silver age, the island and surrounding waters were specifically populated by all manner of greek monsters and the amazons would regularly fight off bands of centaur and the like who caused trouble.

    Also, while a large part of the character is indeed the feminism aspect (and some of the creators concepts of domination and womens roles in society)
    It also served as an allegory for the united states during ww2, and how this one nation with the power to make a differencee and end the chaos was willfully choosing to ignore the issue and maintain neutrality and not get involved. Something Wonder Woman ended up doing in the end and making a difference for it.

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    To bee perfectly honest, I have little to no interest in Black widow or assassin types as superheroes. A shame that Gamora more or less falls into the same mold…

    Hopefully, when Scarlet Witch appears, they wont establish her as some Hydra assassin or something because I would like some variety from Marvels movies for a change.

  • Jesse Tannehill

    Everything you’re saying is true, and I feel is what DC means when they say she is tricky. I think they need to just pick a direction, accept that they won’t please everyone, and go with it. And they need to accept that if it fails then they can always try again. Batman and Robin picked one of the many ways that Batman can be portrayed (campy and over the top) and failed. So the next go around they went with a different direction. Superman Returns went for nostalgic hopefulness, and when it failed they came back with Man of Steel’s dark grittiness. The major problem in your (and supposedly DC’s) argument is the assumption that a Wonder Woman film will only get one chance, and if it fails then that’s it. DC needs to learn from their own previous examples and see that that does not need to be true. These are fucking timeless, classic characters and will always have an audience, so they can afford to try different things with them.

    Also, for the record, I think that the DC animated Wonder Woman dvd did a great job of showing Wonder Woman’s contradictory and ridiculous origin story into an acceptably modern and pretty badass movie. Using that as a template for a feature film seems like a no-brainer to me. And fuck using the New52 origin, I know they probably will in these new movies that really pisses me off.

  • http://valiantknife.org/ Alex

    That’s fine. For me, Natasha has generally been at her most textured and complex in the solo outings, as opposed to her Avengers appearances, where she’s mostly been underused. (DD has been better to her than Avengers, but still a mixed bag.) I also think the relatively steady stream of BW one-offs, minis, OGNs and ongoings for the past 40 years and definitely the past 20, are some proof of continued interest in Natasha as a solo protagonist.

  • http://www.facebook.com/david.schmitt#!/ David R. Schmitt

    So? Widow has been in Iron Man 2, Avengers, Captain America:WS. Movie-verse is making the dough, Carol has yet to be introduced and has only appeared in The Avengers:EMH series, WHY would the studio NOT go with an established and well-liked character for a solo film? Fans man, think with your head and not with your heart so much.

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    If I recall rightly, we were hearing rumors about Doctor Strange for years before he actually became a reality (in so far as producer decisions go), so phase three is not at all unlikely.

  • Anonymous

    You make a good point in comparing Black Panther to Wonder Woman. Both were specifically designed to reflect contemporary activism, and as such carry certain iconographies that could be interpreted by today’s standards as stereotypical caricatures of what they represent, if not handled just right. The raccoon kind of doesn’t. So BP/WW is definitely a closer comparison.

  • MeatyStakes

    I would actually like flashbacks that make Budapest even more WTF worthy.

    But yeah, something small, to give us a frame of what *might* have happened, it would be specially great if the flashback gets abruptly cut and someone says “that’s definitely not how I remember it”

    I just want Budapest to become a running gag XD

  • MeatyStakes

    Therein lies the difference between angst and wangst

  • MeatyStakes

    I would like them if they make Budapest even more confusing hahaha

  • Mark Brown

    Ooh. Maybe a Rashomon-type movie, where Natasha and Clint try to reconstruct exactly ~what~ happened in Budapest. . .

  • Commissar Ahmad

    I think Hawkeye should definitely be in this film. Every good action hero needs a good supporting character to bounce their quips and one-liners off of. What I DON’T want to see is a love angle between them. Widow stated in The Avengers that “love is for children,” and that film set up their relationship as friends and coworkers. It’s a cool dynamic, and I want it to stay.

  • Anonymous

    FUCK yes.

  • Anonymous

    Geez, guys, stop circling and just DO it. And if her part in Avengers wasn’t big enough to justify a movie, then Avengers 2 will apparently be alternately be “Black Widow 4″.

  • Anonymous

    Me too, but I feel like anything they tried to put to film would pale in the face of everyone’s imagining of it.

  • Anonymous

    Her 1970s Amazing Adventures series has already been mentioned, but her first original graphic novel was in 1990.

  • Anonymous

    Very good observation, the WW2 thing. I can absolutely see that connection. War and inequality rages on in the world and Themyscira chooses to isolate itself and hide instead of standing up against it (which could come off as cowardly, which in turn could be interpreted as sexist). Another reason to want someone who “gets it” to make the movie, rather than someone who can just make it “dark enough” to fit their idea of what a superhero movie should be.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t get me wrong – I’d be happy to see them try and try again, but given their record I wouldn’t bet on it (it’s not like Sony who literally had to make another Spider-Man movie ASAP in order to not risk having to sell the rights back). After Batman & Robin, it took 8 years for them to go “oh wait, what if we do it differently”, and they’ve been stuck in Dark-n-Gritty Swamp ever since (with Green Lantern only serving to reinforce the idea that everything else will fail, even though the problem with that movie was in reality something else), and their view of female-led comic book movies was not helped by Catwoman (the problem of which was also the execution). The problem with WB/DC is they primarily look at statistics to tell them how to make movies. That’s no way to tell stories, and that’s something they have to get over before making a Wonder Woman movie, otherwise we’ll get one dark and gritty (and philosophically clumsy) Wonder Woman movie and then they’ll decide that two failed attempts have proven that making female-led superhero movies doesn’t work. Or it will sell a lot of tickets and they’ll make an even stupider sequel that sends a terrible sexist message because it worked the first time to not put real thought into it.

    To me, the animated movie was enjoyable but slightly problematic. I like it, but it’s not hard to nitpick it or take the wrong implications from it. A live action version of that would be alright, but I’d prefer something that deals a little better with the concept of an isolated single-sex society. I find it kind of hard to swallow that they’ve been isolated for 2000-something years and made no apparent progress as a society (if the rest of the world doesn’t still look like ancient Greece, why would Themyscira?) just because there aren’t any men there. I’m all for playing up the notion that a sexist society of either gender would be held back by its own ideals and self-imposed limitations, but you’d think they’d at least invent some stuff and find other things to do than run around hitting each other with swords. I think there’s a finer way to present that idea, and to highlight that it isn’t the fact that they’re women that’s held them back.

  • Batt Damon

    A Black Widow movie directed by Kathryn Bigelow. BOOM.

  • Batt Damon

    Whenever their licence with Warner Brothers runs out

  • Batt Damon

    I bet they’re gonna lock down a GotG sequel after the overwhelming reception to the trailer. I too hope they expand to 3 films a year. There are so many great properties that deserve their own films. I’d much prefer that than more sequels to Captain America and Thor.

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    To speak up about the Silver Age again, they depicted the amazonians as an advanced culture that held onto the old greek aestetic in respect towards the gods, but they themselves were actually a really advanced society in terms of techolegy and magic.
    The invisible plane for example was attributed to the amazons work, and they were credited for many other great achievments such as a device for seeing events in time (whether this was science or magic is unknown)
    Flight Belts
    invisible skin tight suits which allowed breathing in any enviormeent and communicating with people via ear pieces
    and possibly magic/scientific/mythical kangaroo’s that were tamed to allow for short distance space travel.

    Admittedly, the reason for this was because the silver age was trying to bury its magical routes and go SPACE and SCIENCE and given Wonder Womans unshakable connections to magic and the mythical, the best they could do was add onto the what was already there, but this depiction was actually reused by a number of writers over the years, as recently as the 90s, the last period of it that comes to mind being the period where paradise island joined the united nations and established itself as a constitutional democracy, with the royal family existing in a manner similar to Britains ‘having a royal family but being a democracy’ sort of way.

    (I found it fun that the role of leader of the island at the time was actually two people who were required to come to an agreement on something before it could be made into law.)

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    Well even back in the Golden Age they did not depict the amazons as perfect. In this case, they were kinda biggoted towards those who were not amazons and it was actually against their laws to get involved in the outside world.
    But they also suffered from a case of ‘out of sight out of mind’ so that they could more easily ignore a problem when it was not right in front of them.

    The ‘on paper’ reason for Dianas departure was that Steve Trevor had washed up on the island and the Amazons held a contest of physical prowess to see who had the strength to journey to ‘mans world’ in order to take Steve Trevor back to the mainland. Because while they do not allow men on the island, they wern’t the dark and gritty sort who would straight up kill one for washing ashore. (Some depictions also add an emphasis to Trevors role of a warrior and that the Amazons despite being an all woman culture, held a certain respect for fellow soldiers regardless of their views and suchness.)

    Diana was straight up forbidden to even compete in the challenge by her mother, because the whole point was to head ashore, drop this guy off and come back to the island. (And Diana didn’t exactly make her feelings of wanting to go out there and use her power to make a difference a secret.)
    And Diana ended up using this as an excuse to head off, drop off Trevor and do what she could to stop the fighting and usher an era of peace, even if this meant busting a few heads and stopping the war with force (Warriors make the funnest peace keepers)

    One fun tidbit though, the final challenge Wonder Woman had to go through was called ‘Guns and bracelets’ which was to test an amazons speed and dexterity. (Im sure you can guess what it entailed)

    And as for the part about Dark and Gritty….I have to be honest, it is not hard to see why DC might feel that way. Heck, Marvels movies are much darker and grittier than the origin stories they are telling. (Starks weapons were never sold to terrorists, he was a jerk but became a hero to help people, kept a secret identity, even though that concept is seen as ‘kiddy and stupid’ nowadays)

    In fact, Marvels movies have made a regular pattern out of copying Wonder Woman. Or more specifically, her motives.

    Tony Stark: Rich bajillionaire with a clean burning energy generator, sells his weapons to anyone and everyone, not caring about the victims his company creates. After getting his ass kicked by his own tech, he has a moment of reflection and decides to do good as Iron Man despite everyone around him telling him to stay on his island of cash, booze and hookers and ignore his responsibility like always.

    Thor: Complete jerkass jerkface whose hobbies include attempted genocide, racism and general douchebaggery, gets banished to Earth so he can learn some respect and after his lesson he refuses to stay in Asgard, ignoring the worlds problems and departs to make a difference on earth.

    Captain America: A person with alot of heart that wants to make a difference, ends up being used as a walking billboard and told to stay in thee states, ignoring the good that he could be doing or the difference he could be making. In the end he has to go against the laws he swore to uphold and leave his ‘island’ and the jerkfaceness of those in charge so he can head to the front lines and make a difference.

    Hulk: Complete monster that has to be kept at bay by his alter ego and when Banner is not trying to secrete away and ignore his problems, the Hulk is eexisting in the security of a blind rage and lashing out at anyone and everyone that angeers it. By the end of the film, the monster transformation recognizes friend from foe and only attacks the baddie, running off to keep from harming anyone else. (This fact still makes the berserk scene in Avengers baffling to me.) And leaving the security of a blind rage to take responsibility with his power and try to do good.

    Marvel is very formula with their movies and it is pretty easy to draw a pattern between them. (I wont be surprised if their take on the Guardians is a bunch of jerks who choose to do good by the end of the film and willingly become heroes, ignoring their own more metaphorical islands)
    Its thanks to that wonderful formula that they can maintain the illusion of having an overall plan years in advance for all the connected properties. ^^

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    Well even back in the Golden Age they did not depict the amazons as perfect. In this case, they were kinda biggoted towards those who were not amazons and it was actually against their laws to get involved in the outside world.
    But they also suffered from a case of ‘out of sight out of mind’ so that they could more easily ignore a problem when it was not right in front of them.

    The ‘on paper’ reason for Dianas departure was that Steve Trevor had washed up on the island and the Amazons held a contest of physical prowess to see who had the strength to journey to ‘mans world’ in order to take Steve Trevor back to the mainland. Because while they do not allow men on the island, they wern’t the dark and gritty sort who would straight up kill one for washing ashore. (Some depictions also add an emphasis to Trevors role of a warrior and that the Amazons despite being an all woman culture, held a certain respect for fellow soldiers regardless of their views and suchness.)

    Diana was straight up forbidden to even compete in the challenge by her mother, because the whole point was to head ashore, drop this guy off and come back to the island. (And Diana didn’t exactly make her feelings of wanting to go out there and use her power to make a difference a secret.)
    And Diana ended up using this as an excuse to head off, drop off Trevor and do what she could to stop the fighting and usher an era of peace, even if this meant busting a few heads and stopping the war with force (Warriors make the funnest peace keepers)

    One fun tidbit though, the final challenge Wonder Woman had to go through was called ‘Guns and bracelets’ which was to test an amazons speed and dexterity. (Im sure you can guess what it entailed)

    And as for the part about Dark and Gritty….I have to be honest, it is not hard to see why DC might feel that way. Heck, Marvels movies are much darker and grittier than the origin stories they are telling. (Starks weapons were never sold to terrorists, he was a jerk but became a hero to help people, kept a secret identity, even though that concept is seen as ‘kiddy and stupid’ nowadays)

    In fact, Marvels movies have made a regular pattern out of copying Wonder Woman. Or more specifically, her motives.

    Tony Stark: Rich bajillionaire with a clean burning energy generator, sells his weapons to anyone and everyone, not caring about the victims his company creates. After getting his ass kicked by his own tech, he has a moment of reflection and decides to do good as Iron Man despite everyone around him telling him to stay on his island of cash, booze and hookers and ignore his responsibility like always.

    Thor: Complete jerkass jerkface whose hobbies include attempted genocide, racism and general douchebaggery, gets banished to Earth so he can learn some respect and after his lesson he refuses to stay in Asgard, ignoring the worlds problems and departs to make a difference on earth.

    Captain America: A person with alot of heart that wants to make a difference, ends up being used as a walking billboard and told to stay in thee states, ignoring the good that he could be doing or the difference he could be making. In the end he has to go against the laws he swore to uphold and leave his ‘island’ and the jerkfaceness of those in charge so he can head to the front lines and make a difference.

    Hulk: Complete monster that has to be kept at bay by his alter ego and when Banner is not trying to secrete away and ignore his problems, the Hulk is eexisting in the security of a blind rage and lashing out at anyone and everyone that angeers it. By the end of the film, the monster transformation recognizes friend from foe and only attacks the baddie, running off to keep from harming anyone else. (This fact still makes the berserk scene in Avengers baffling to me.) And leaving the security of a blind rage to take responsibility with his power and try to do good.

    Marvel is very formula with their movies and it is pretty easy to draw a pattern between them. (I wont be surprised if their take on the Guardians is a bunch of jerks who choose to do good by the end of the film and willingly become heroes, ignoring their own more metaphorical islands)
    Its thanks to that wonderful formula that they can maintain the illusion of having an overall plan years in advance for all the connected properties. ^^

  • Redwinevino

    Didn’t they hire a female director for Thor 2?

  • Gerald Kirby

    Warner Bros owns DC Comics, so yeah, that will never happen.

  • gwormmy

    ‘Raccoon with a machine gun? No problem. ‘

    I’ll never understand why people think this makes Marvel look any better than DC. The fact they think Rocket is more palatable than a female led movie makes them looks just as bad as DC’s ‘Wonder Woman is too hard’.

  • Anonymous

    Marvel has to bow to the pressure soon, fans are starting to lose patience with the lack of a film with a woman in the lead role. Every now and then one of us gets frustrated enough to make a fake poster to play with everyone’s emotions http://mediavengers.com/post/77120423410

  • Anonymous

    If it’s an origin story, I’m thinking Bucky. She makes some discovery or goes on a mission related to her past, and calls him as it’s relevent to him too.

  • Larry

    I think these comic movies need land and air combat ability characters.
    Falcon is a good tie in for Captain America. Maybe Falcon can be Widow’s partner as well.

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    I confess, when I read that statement, the first thing that popped into my head was Moleman teaming up with Falcon. XD

  • http://www.anikaguldstrand.com Anika Guldstrand

    Dear Marvel, please please please let Joss helm this. Please.

  • Batt Damon

    I guess that answers that question then

  • Adrian

    They way I see it, they need those sequels to minimize the risk on the newer properties, which I think is actually genius.

    You have Winter Soldier this year along with Guardians, so if Guardians doesn’t do so well, they at least made money with Cap.

  • Adrian

    Personally, I don’t see Hawkeye making it out of Age of Ultron. I’m pretty sure someone from the Avengers is going to die and I’m putting my money on Renner, the guy that was outspoken about his role in the first film.

    What I’d like to see if a Black Widow film does get made is an appearance from Agent 13, whom they’re introducing in The Winter Soldier. Perhaps even the Scarlet Witch depending on how all that goes with Ultron.

  • alannah mcgrowdie

    My Uncle James recently got a new black
    Mazda MAZDASPEED3 Hatchback by working at home online. you can try here C­a­s­h­D­u­t­i­e­s­.­ℂ­o­m

  • Batt Damon

    Don’t get me wrong, I still like those movies a lot. I just hope they start doing three a year. That way they can put out sequels for bankable characters like Thor and Cap and have room for sequels for their smaller properties (Gotg, Ant-Man, Hulk etc) and establish a new franchise as well.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, but then she was replaced by a male director.

  • Redwinevino

    I somehow totally forgot that! Thanks for letting me know.

  • Megistus

    I have one question, is there enough in the character lore of Black-Widow for her to be wortrh a standalone film?

  • Lisa Liscoumb

    Agreed. :)

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    I’m not so sure Hawkeye’s gonna make it out of Winter Soldier. There’s some dude’s dead body Tasha’s all weepy over and then there is the ARROW NECKLACE

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    And interchangable Hottie McRockBodys for the love interest!

  • Adrian

    Hawkeye isn’t in The Winter Soldier and Whedon has already talked about him having a big role in Age of Ultron so I’m guessing it’s not him Widow’s crying over.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

    We don’t know that he’s not in CAWS, and well if they were trying to hide his death, that’s exactly what they would say, so that matters little. Whedon’s pretty known for the whole “I have all types of stuff planned for this allegedly doomed character, so don’t worry!” bit.

  • Anonymous

    I never said they shouldn’t be a BW movie – but as a fan I would be more willing to spend my cash on a Captain Marvel film. Plus nowadays Marvel can take risks when it come to their movie properties – and if I was in charge that risk would be on a super powerful Human / Kree hybrid soldier instead of a character that has proven that she works better as a supporting character (again not a bad this to be)!

  • Anonymous

    Yes, and even if there isn’t any, they can come up with some.

  • Anonymous

    And it’s all being done to suit people who felt slighted that ether favorite character wasn’t in the Avengers (like the silly people who insisted that Cate Archer and a ton of other female characters be in Marvel Agents of SHIELD even though the budget couldn’t afford to have super-powered character in it every week.)

  • Anonymous

    Fuck, NO. Let’s see how this movie with Black Widow does first, then we can see a ton of movies with female supers in them (and I’m sorry, but a solo Peggy movie wouldn’t work.) Please stop coming up with unrealistic projects that may not work.

  • Anonymous

    Ummmm….I don’t speak for the OP, but I believe at best, they were describing a fantasy. I said “fuck yes” because the more people who identify as women are represented, the more we’re going to feel included. Fuck the “let’s see how this does”; tiptoeing around making a main character who is not straight, white, cis, abled-bodied, like it’s so “riskay” is some SERIOUS bullshit.

  • Megistus

    O.k, so what’s Black Widow done? I need events and comic issues/series. So that I’ll be ready to board the Hypetrain.

  • Anonymous

    All good points, but when I say “Dark-n-gritty”, I don’t mean conceptually or philosophically, I mean in terms of presentation. Marvel aren’t afraid to be goofy, humorous and just short of cartoony, whereas the style WB seems to be going for with their DC properties (especially after failing with Green Lantern) is kind of humorless, somber and even visually dark (in terms of lighting and color timing). A lot of the Golden Age and Silver Age ideas surrounding Wonder Woman are quite a bit “goofier” than Batman, so it would be tricky to take those ideas and force them into a style that doesn’t fit them at all. That’s what I’m talking about with regard to WB’s obsession with the Dark-n-Gritty. It’s a stylistic hangup, not a theme (although there’s also been a theme of murder, with Batman refusing to save Ra’s Al Ghul’s life in Begins while arguing that that doesn’t count, Wonder Woman in the Kelley pilot running around and killing people left and right for no reason, Green Arrow doing the same throughout the first season of Arrow, Superman snapping Zod’s neck at the end of Man of Steel because his dad said letting people die is awesome – all of which would be fine if these characters were Black Widow and Hawkeye, but they’re the damn Justice League and they should take every possible step to avoid doing that…but I digress). Point is, Marvel feels they can afford fun and even wacky, whereas WB feels cracking a joke or even turning the light on will stamp them as immature. That gets in the way when trying to bring a comic book universe to the screen. I guess what “Dark-n-Gritty” (a phrase I here use mockingly) means in this particular context is “the opposite of playful”.

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    I just find the term ‘dark and gritty’ to be a bit of a difficult term to pin down at times when DC gets called out for its characters taking death seriously and actually mourning a loss, with heroes being genuinely shooken up about it….Leeeading to audiences booing the act as the most terrible depiction to date.

    While with Marvel, Iron man can kill a couple dozen terrorists with a hearty applause, can fly off to iraq for the jollies and blow up tanks and kill people just to test out his newest toy, can blow up jets and is directly responsible for every nemesis he has encountered across all three films…And it is somehow humorous and light hearted despite the film featuring an egotistical sociopath.

    Or heck, Thor is a racist nutjob who the story opens with slaughtering dozens of frost giants because they existed. This isn’t simply a case of a character slaying monsters because Odin himself makes it pretty bloody clear that it was straight up murder of another sentient species. In fact, word of god on the matter straight up establishes for the cinematic universe, that Asgard used to be the homeland of the frost giants who were driven by their world by the Asgardians and forced to resettle. The whole ‘invasion of the frost giants’ business? Justified.
    So you have these films focused on what is essentially a racist asshat that was straight up called out on his actions of brutality and monstrosity and told to redeem himself for it.
    In the comics, he didn’t go killing anyone, he was just a big jerk who acted like he was better than everyone and treated humans like scum. For that, he was turned into a cripple and sent to Earth to spend forty years reincarnated with no memories of his past life, learning to be a doctor and how valuable life actually is.
    In the movies…He kills a couple dozen people, the film indicates that he has done this sort of thing repeatedly, and he gets punished by being sent to earth…Without his powers but in a perfectly healthy form that everyone is gaga for and forced to walk among humans for….Four days tops and then flies back to Asgard automatically redeemed of all anything he has ever done ever, while Loki who mannagess to have a smaller body count, is treated like the bad guy, and even then fans are squee for him and overlook the people he did successfully murder.

    Or bleep, Hulk. The Hulk in the opening of his film straight up murdered a team of American soldiers. These weren’t innocent civilians like Thor killed, or terrorists like Iron man killed, these were more or less heroes who were trying to subdue an escaped scientist who was working on dangerous research.
    The thing is a mass murder who by Banner’s own indication, goes on a killing spree whenever he loses control and had gotten loose at least one other time between the period in which Banner went on the run and the start of the movie. This character has killed repeatedly and has the memory of a goldfish apparently because it can go from trying to killing a load of people, to trying to protect a specific person, to trying to outright save the day and do good….To a film later straight up trying to fridge the black widow only for forty minutes later, to forget all about the whole attempted murder business and fight to save the day again.

    Not only does Hulk/Banner not get punished for what he did, but he gets praised for his actions and the many deaths on his hands gets completly brushed aside, with him now living a life of luxery, napping on thee private jet of the worlds wealthiest bajillionaire.

    Black Widow effortlessly killing people as soon as looking at them, even though her mission would have been better accomplished by taking people alive, snapping necks without blinking gets a pass because thee very point of her character is that she is a SHIELD assassin whose job description is killing without a second thought, but they don’t actually play up any sort of humor with her actions and are striaght up front that, she kills people and killing people is not funny. (Unlike every other hero presented)

    Hawkeye like Superman, actually freaks out and is terribly shooken up at the thought and realization that he killed people under Loki’s control, and people just brush that aside and look down on Hawkeye for it, despite it being a tragic and heart breaking scene.

    When only one out of six heroes can take the moral high ground, and that particular hero was a soldier who actually had to kill in service of his country (unlike the first three on this list who did it cause killing is something fun to laugh about) then you have some pretty dark and grim movies there.

    As for DC….Yes it does have a darker tone, but it doesn’t actually celebrate acts of genocide, racism and murder as heroism, and it sure as heck doesn’t pretend such acts are those of a hero.

  • Anonymous

    But it’s all about context. The Avengers are a bunch of dicks who come together to deal with a situation. That’s no secret.

    Essential part of Superman: He’s a symbol of hope. They even practically say that in the movie by saying the crest of the house of El means hope. He’s the super powerful alien come to earth and raised by good parents who teach him to respect life and use his powers responsibly. In the movie, the very core of the character is removed by having Jonathan Kent tell him it’s okay to let people die. That’s the opposite of everything Superman stands for.

    Essential part of Batman: The very key moment in Batman’s origin is when his parents get shot. I know that in the very earliest comics, he did use a gun, but that aspect of the character was dropped in favor of the superior idea that Batman vowed never to take a life. This is what they were setting up in the movie by having Bruce take a gun to the Joe Chill trial (an allusion to said early comics use of gun) and then having Rachel basically remind him that his parents would have been ashamed of him, and then they cement that by having him straight up tell Ra’s he doesn’t want to kill anyone, and refusing to kill the guy they told him to kill. Then he goes and sets the place on fire, possibly killing a bunch of faceless ninja, and then at the end he tells Ra’s “I don’t have to save you” and lets him die, just so the screenwriter can pretend to be writing Commando for a moment (assuming it wasn’t a forced rewrite, which it probably was). As many things as I like about Begins, that’s just careless storytelling. It’s not that it’s bad to have a character kill people, but Batman has a very specific no killing thing. Just like Superman does.

    Thor really doesn’t, nor does Iron Man. The Hulk isn’t even in control of his actions in his own movie (which is a movie about restraint…which pretty much becomes uninteresting the moment he hulks out and the tension is gone), so he’s a bit of a non sequitur. In fact, in the moment you mentioned in The Avengers where he almost kills Black Widow, he’s not only out of control angry; he’s also under the influence of Loki’s scepter, which he isn’t later in the movie (when he chooses to hulk out rather than being made to by an external force, which is why these moments are so different from each other), so that’s not very different from Hawkeye’s situation, and when you say “and people just brush that aside and look down on Hawkeye for it”, I have no clue what people you’re referring to, because I’ve never heard any such thing.

    And yes, Black Widow obviously gets a pass because she’s an assassin. This isn’t about morality; it’s about character consistency. It’s inconsistent with Superman’s character to be snapping his opponent’s neck, and it’s against Batman’s character to purposely not save his opponent’s life even though he can, and essentially mock him while making that choice. Captain America killing nazis? Well, yeah, he’s the super soldier. Iron Man shooting terrorists? I wouldn’t necessarily agree with that choice when other options are available, but I can totally see him making it. Thor killing frost giants? Again, bad idea, but I buy it as a thing he would totally do (and I’m Swedish, so I’m supposedly the demographic who should know these things). Hawkeye and Black Widow? Assassins. Hulk? That’s just part of his arc. It only makes sense that there’d be some casualties in the early part of his journey toward learning to restrain himself a bit, and the scepter incident is essentially the equivalent of an addict being drugged by a “friend” while trying to kick the habit – perfectly functional as part of the metaphor.

    Hell, I’ll even buy that the killing in season 1 of Arrow, even if it’s handled a bit clumsily (specifically his motivation for not killing people was a bit dumb, given that there are much better reasons to stop murdering people, such as being an idealist with a very strong sense of fair play, like in the comics), kind of works at least internally as part of that version of Oliver’s arc (in that there’s still room to grow into his idealism and sense of morality over the course of the series, kind of like how his liberal views got established later in the comics), while Batman and Superman both have their no-kill policies deeply rooted in their origins and themes.

    With Superman, it should come from the Kents, and with Batman it’s connected to his parents getting shot, but I have no problem with the actual moment of decision coming later, as long as he doesn’t ever purposely go back on it (he should’ve stuck to his non-guns after that important talk with Rachel after not getting to shoot Joe Chill), and he should be completely obsessed with it, because obsessiveness is one of the key elements of the Batman character, which is also why it bothers me that he basically quit at the end of Rises. It’s not that there’s something wrong with a character quitting – it’s that Batman, being who he is, would never do that as long as he can physically continue (and even in Batman Beyond, he finds a way to continue his obsession even though he physically can’t). It’s the same with the not killing. He should be so obsessed with it that even though he could let Ra’s Al Ghul die, he can’t do it – he has to save the life of the guy who just threatened a whole city – his city – like it tried to molest his angels or something. Not because it’s the right thing to do – that’s ambiguous to most people – but because that’s the kind of person Batman, specifically, is. The “I don’t have to save you” moment is completely out of character, as is the arson, even within the movie itself and what it had established with the post-gun dialogue scene. And while I’m at it, another thing that was inconsistent was that they stated pretty clearly that Batman is the real person and Bruce Wayne is just a mask, and yet Batman is the one doing a silly put-on voice (unlike Kevin Conroy’s portrayal, which had Batman speak in a very intimate and real voice, while Bruce was more of a performance of slight smarminess, which makes more sense for the character). It’s like the DC movies go out of their way to say things like “The symbol of the House of El means hope. Embodied within that hope is the fundamental belief in the potential of every person to be a force for good. and “No. No, this is your mask. Your real face is the one that criminals now fear.” without really knowing what they mean or how to show it in action.

    As for the Wonder Woman pilot, I feel like the only reason she was killing everyone left and right with no regard for anything was because David E. Kelley has never read a comic book and just thinks that’s the entire extent of what superheroes do, and it hasn’t occurred to him that maybe they do other things as well. Lack of imagination, basically. Which seems to be a general theme.

  • Anonymous

    You can find out all of this for yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Widow_(Natalia_Romanova)

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    Im going to start with the last part first. The wonder woman pilot had a mess of problems, but you can’t really blame David Kelley for not reading the comics. The original script was to feature Paradise Island via flashbacks throughout the episode ala Arrow and explore how Wonder Woman grew to become the person she was by the time of the shows start. (lemme point out that this plan predated Arrow) But the director cut out all those bits because he felt it took away from the main plot and would just drag things on.

    The other elements can be blamed on drawing inspiration from Power Girl (a character whose civilian identity is that of the head of a big successful company which she built from the ground up.)
    and from the 90s wonder woman who was actually more eye rolliingly kill happy than the tv pilot. Ive heard from fans of the darker and edgier wonder woman who spoke well of the pilot (though i prefer the silver age wonder woman and just see it as lame personally) so it did seem to draw in a certain crowd.

    Now to go back to the beginning….

    The avengers in the comics however, are not actually dicks. The dickishness of the movie avengers was created FOR the movies.

    Alot of these traits have been added on over the years, most especially AFTER the films came out, but before…Hardly at all.

    Iron Man actually started out as a billionaire playboy without the drinking habit and such and has more or less stuck to the no killing rule in the comics throughout, heck, he kept to a secret identity until the civil war event (which came after the movie), claiming that iron man was his trusty security guard. The one time he did go around killing folk during the 90s had such heavy backlash that Marvel had to kill Tony Stark off and replace him with a different tony stark so they could say he had nothing to do with the crap the last tony stark pulled.

    He was kinda dull and he never stood for anything, though he was Marvels go to for tech stuff and he got all their boring corporate espionage and politicial stories.
    Nowadays, Iron Man blows up whole universes to protect his own verse and will kill countless lives to protect others, but he never actually goes joy riding to blow up people for the lawls.

    As for Thor, Marvels version of Thor is sooooooo separated from the original to the point that I cannot see them being even remotly related (and depending on who is writing the comic at the time, the current Thor is actually the faulty reincarnation of Baldr and the entire Norse pantheon gets regularly wiped out every few centuries by Ragnarok, with the warrior 3 making up the REAL Thor, Loki and Freyr)

    Marvels Thor is a super duper nice guy who never hurts anyone, tries to make peace whenever possible. Tolerant of everyone and beloved by everyone to the point that one writer began claiming he was jesus and managed to get away with it longer than expected. XD

    Hulk initially represented how someone who was different looking could be discriminated against and misunderstood. a central point to Hulk before the 90s beat him to submission was that he never killed anyone, avoided trouble even when hulked out and only caused collateral damage when fighting monsters. he was followed around by a young side-ekick who could understand hulk and connect to him crystal clearly.

    It was not until the 80s where they started retconning things and started establishing stuff like stark being an alcoholic, captain america actually participated in ww2 (they had also established a never kills policy for captain america who had served with the national guard so he would have never taken a life.) By the end of the 90s we had it established that there neever was a transformation for Banner, and that ever since he was a child he had a psychotic split personality that killed anything and everything, with the gamma bomb just giving it a shape.

    So you kinda have a consistency I guess for Marvel…If you are to count the most recent takes on the characters, throw in the Ultimate Marvel takes (which were so reviled that Marvel killed off all of them because nobody liked how grimdark they were.) and ignore any version of the Avengers where they got along and worked as a cohesive team (which was most of the time since the dysfunctional family schtick was being useed by the fantastic four) But even then it is kinda tenuous.

    I get that none of the Avengers really have an essential part, and that they don’t really stand for or symbolize anything (aside from the Hulk who can’t even get a sequel despite the actors push for a ‘movie with an environmental message, like Godzilla’)

    Going now to Batman and Superman, they only come off as inconsistent if you have been ignoring most of the comics featuring them over the past thirty years.

    Batman especially because this is a character who has such a wide sliding scale of optemism and cynicism in his character portrayals, that the Nolan version is not even the darkest take that this character has been depicted with.

    As for your specific examples…They are very true to the golden age of Batman, and I mean the Batman after the no killing thing was established. He was pretty big on not directly taking a life, but on many an occasion he would drive a steam roller through a warehouse wall, fire a missile at an oncoming bomber, leave a crook hanging suspended from a ledge and just letting them fall…They established he would never take a life back then, they never said he had to go out of his way to save anyone. It was not until the Silver age where we had a proper Batman who went out of his way to save villains from themselves and this take that lasted for decades, is what later cemented the more general protect life concept that people are more familiar with nowadays. And even then, depending on the writer he still kills even nowadays, the most notorious example being Millers run, in which Batman among other things decided to take care of dirty cops on the force by killing them (similar to what Two-face did in the second movie.)

    I am hardly going to defend the nolan movies, which had alot of issues, particularly in regards to poorly shoe horned themes and plot holes, but Batmans character was as true to Batman in that movie as he was in the Burton film, or the Miller take or even the Bill Finger take.

    When you have a character who is nearly a century old who has been everything from a cold blooded vigilante who despises the law and lurks in the shadows, to a bright eyed optimistic do gooder who is duly deputized by the law to patrol the streets by day and stop crime while being a good role model for children….It is very difficult to call anything a truly wrong take for the character.

    As for the whole silly voice thing, this is purely fannon but I like to imagine that Bruce is genuinely trying to sound intimidating and scawy and thats his ‘grown up voice’ :3

    As for Superman, you seem to be confusing ‘never kills’ with hope. ^^;

    Yes, Superman never kills!…Twenty years ago. As comics have gotten steadily darker and darker (on both Marvel and DC’s side. trying to pretend only one of them has gotten nihilistically dark of late is silly) so has Superman. He remains the most hopeful and optimistic character, but when everything gets darker, that becomes a lower bar to reach.

    Before the new 52, there was a story arc called ‘new krypton’ which was about Supermans adopted son restoring the shrunken city and trying to make earth a new krypton by killing the inhabitants, forcing Superman to choose between the two worlds. And with those who would hurt the innocents being just as strong as him, and unable to convince them otherwise, Superman was forced to kill them all to save the planet earth.

    Its a story actually from the comics which the movie is based upon, forcing Superman to choose between Earth and Krypton. (Though the movie also ties it to Zod and his origin story, with a load of well planned sequel hooks)

    And in recent years, Superman has just gotten darker. New 52 kicked off by establishing this Superman as having destroyed a substantial chunk of Metropolis trying to stop a speeding train. And of recent, Superman accidentally killed doctor light and is now dating a take on wonder woman who has to be restrained from killing criminals.

    Saying DC is being inconsistent with their characters for using the modernized darker take of Superman is itself inconsistent unless you will also hold it against Stark for being an alcoholic playboy which he wasn’t for the longest time, or Thor who in the comics never got into the whole genocidal nutter schtick, or hawkeye who hadn’t taken a single life in the comics until the 2000′s, Same for Hulk who was perfectly not killing people until the 90s.

    In an age nowadays where an ever growing number of films are disaster movies, posy apocalyptic movies or movies with downer endings of doom and gloom, I say Man of Steel was the most hopeful piece of cinematic history I have seen in a long long time.
    Especially given how ominous and depressing the Marvel cinematic universe has been steadily building into.

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    To be honest, she is not as big a character when it comes to solo stuff so much as team stuff. She ran a version of the Avengers, she lead a team called the champions which included ghost rider and Hercules, and she joined shield about a decade ago.

    When it comes to standalone stories, she has had a couple, one focusing on her training in russia to become a top assasin (in the comics she had a russian form of thee super soldier serum) , and a story that reveals that she is one of dozens of ‘black widow’ agents, and that someone is trying to take them all out, forcing her to hunt down her fellow black widows to catch the one behind it all.

    Personally, she is not a character I liked very much, though im not a fan of assasins or murder heroes in general. But there is certainly enough material for at least one film.

  • Megistus

    Thanks,if you could from end som body over Disqus I’d definately friend you!

    Somebody in the Kremlin, deciceds it’s finally time to get rid of that pesky rouge agent. And activates the remaning black widows to take her out!

    That is a movie premis that would get my attension, and money; I’d at least get the DVD!

  • Anonymous

    Um, they’re giving Peggy Carter an entire TV show, so…bite me.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peggy_Carter#Television

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    Personally, id be hoping for an origin story about her lead up into joining SHIELD in the comics she was actually a pretty canny spy villianess, who had seduced Hawkeye and convinced him to be her lacky in villiany until she decides to turn good, taking her pet archer with her to the side of justice.

    As for Hawkeye, he ends up marrying Mockingbird later down the road, but because comics, the marriage was erased from all memory as if it never occured (darn you mephisto!)

  • Anonymous

    As long as it’s set during the years she was a young woman post-WWII, I’ll have no problem with it. And right back at you with the ‘bite me’ part.

    Also, if they want to make a super-heroine show, why not do one with Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) instead of Peggy?

  • Anonymous

    I’m a reader of the current comic book, and I feel that story will work better than the animated DTV DVD storyline ever will (making people pay to see the same story again but now live action will seem like a cash grab.) I’m willing to bet that the current comic book story will be turned into an animated movie, too, just like the current Justice League book became Justice League: War

  • Anonymous

    It sound like Marvel took these concepts and used it for the Squadron Supreme character Power Princess; too bad DC didn’t follow suite and rewrite Wonder Woman to be teh same way.

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    Umm…Marvel pretty blatantly based the entire Squadron supreme premise off of the Justice League to start with, so it is not that surprising. ^^;

    Squadron Supreme it should be pointed out was created in the 1970s, so at the time, Wonder Woman actually was like that.

    As opposed to nowadays when Marvels adaptions of DC characters consist of a super duper evil superman double named Hyperion, and Artume http://marvel.com/universe/Artume princess of the amazons who kills her mother because she committed the greatest of sins, loving a MAN~~~ ‘For any woman who involves herself with men must be destroyed along with allz the menz~’

    The difference is that while Marvel makes adaptions, DC more often than not buys out companies who make adaptions of their characters (purchased shazam because the main charrie was similar to superman. purchased the dakotaverse because Icon was basically a black superman and so on.)

  • Anonymous

    I’m not just saying inconsistent with the source material. That’s pretty much inescapable after all these decades of different interpretations. I’m primarily saying Batman in Batman Begins is internally inconsistent, and not in the sense of being layered. He puts his foot down and says no killing, right before committing a reckless act that’s likely to kill a whole bunch of people, then later he basically kills the guy he’s trying to make that no-kill point to through deliberate inaction, while mocking him. And the movie goes out of the way to say Batman is his true identity and Bruce Wayne is the mask, even though Bale’s performance seems to say the complete opposite. That’s the inconsistency. It’s within the movie itself.

    With Superman, though, yes, I am definitely saying inconsistent with the source material (even though there have been exceptions through the years), or at least with the iconic idea of Superman, and yes, with the theme of hope. “Power corrupts” and “aliens are bad” are the ideas that Superman is “supposed” to subvert. That’s the hope he represents. I’m not saying no writer should ever try to push Superman toward the edge, but that’s the kind of thing where you have to make absolutely sure there’s no point in the story where Superman is just being an idiot and missing an obvious way to prevent the destruction of a city, the deaths of thousands of innocents and the direct murder of a fellow sapient (and in this case nearly extinct) life form. If Superman is to kill, or even think about killing someone, it has to be because he truly has been given no choice. If he has the strength to snap the dude’s neck, he has the strength to simply redirect his eye beams, and going even further back, he could’ve dealt with the issue way before it got to that point (say, by destroying the tech on Zod’s ship, for example), and the only reason he didn’t is because then the movie would’ve been too short, which tells me there’s something fundamentally wrong with the story to begin with, especially given that Superman is supposed to be – even according to the movie itself – a symbol of hope. A symbol of hope doesn’t miss an obvious opportunity to at least try to nip the problem in the bud. “Oh, you have a machine that can kill all humans? Hang on.” *Zooms off faster than a speeding bullet to throw said machine into the sun.* “Now that that’s sorted, and while you’re busy whining about it, let’s get you back in that Phantom Zone.”
    If he had tried that and Zod somehow stopped him, that would’ve at least put “at least he tried” in Superman’s column, but he didn’t. He was stupid and his stupidity got Metropolis destroyed, tons of citizens presumed dead, and ultimately made a murderer of him, and the extent of the apparent impact this mistake had on his character arc: “RAWR!”…well said, Superman. Well said. Very hopey. Our symbol of hope has been reduced to a growling, reckless idiot. Symbol of dope. Not that he’s never been dumb in various media before – he has – but I wouldn’t point to those instances as shining examples of what Superman represents either.

    Regarding New 52 Wonder Woman: I haven’t read much of the New 52 stuff, but the notion of calling someone Wonder Woman when their main way of dealing with any kind of conflict is murder is a bit…scary. Where’s the wonder in that? Or is it an “I wonder why this woman is such a psycho” thing? Because that’s what I was wondering when I saw the Kelley pilot.

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    Aaah, I misunderstood your point, sorry.

    Regarding that, it still makes a certain sense if you are considering this Batman as being a lighter and softer version of Miller’s take on Batman who was so torn up over his parents death that he himself became a bit psychotic in the following years. In that version, Batman actually inspired Joker to become like Batman, and while Batman naysays killing, he himself puts guns in everything and is more or less a hypocrite.

    Personally when it comes to Nolan’s take I have far more issue with the actual story, tone and moral of the movies themselves, rather than Batmans appearance which does fairly well for a Batman.
    Second movie: rawr~ the moral is that people are fundamentally good and even if their lives are at stake, they will never kill another person~
    Third movie: Rawr~ Wall Street Protesters are evil and persecuting rich people like the rich guy making this movie~ they would totally kill others while mistakenly thinking it will save their lives~!
    Which kinda makes sense if you imagine it was supposed to mirror the hypocritical behavior of Batman, but that is probably giving the director more credit than he deserves.

    Man of Steel however, and Superman do not share these problems.

    The point you mentioned in which Superman had the option to destroy the tech on Zods ship, only would have worked if you forget that Lois was burning up into the atmosphere and Superman had to run off and save her last minute.
    This putting aside the fact that at no point does Superman show the capability of throwing something into the sun in the first place.

    Over the course of the movie, this is a Superman wrapped in guilt because by obeying his father and doing what he was told, he let his father die, because he believed in what his father told him. A character who spent the early course of the film trying to figure out who he was and traveled in order to find himself and in the end he discovers that even if he is not from this place, and even if he has connections to a culture that nobody else follows, he is still a citizen of earth and as much a person as anyone else.

    Superman was the creation of two jewish immigrants whose character escaping from a doomed homeland and coming to grow up in a strange new world was an obvious allegory. The films inclusion of forced genetics and how you fit into society is based on your genes is another blatant nod to what inspired Supermans creation.

    Superman struggled through difficult things, things hat effected him emotionally and in the end he came out bigger and stronger for it, symbolizing how even in the darkest of circumstance, there is hope.

    Watching and rewatching that movie, I can find nothing about this take on Superman that I dislike. Mistakes Superman makes in the film can simply be chalked up to inexperience and having trouble grasping everything going on around him. This is not a Superman who has been wearing the cape for years and has regularly fought supervillains, this is a Superman who has traveled across the world in a quest for his own identity (another storyline from some years ago) who would use his powers to save people as best he can. He did not even realize he could fly until an hour into the film and the robot from the ship being able to actually restrain and harm him understandably freaked out a Superman who had never encountered before anything that could do that to him.

    As for the snapping of Zods neck by the end, the villain in question had successfully killed loads of people not an hour before, was at least as strong as he was and unlike superman, was genetically created for war and violence, meaning that his sole purpose was adapting to changing situations and using things to his advantage. The only reason Superman got the upperhand was because Zod was so torn up over the realization that they couldn’t restore Krypton, that he was just fighting in a blind rage. Superman, who until that day had never encountered anyone who could fight him on an equel level, was lucky to hold his own and if he had found some way to deflect zods attack, what could superman have done then? Zods at least as strong as he is, willing to kill anyone and everyone, and this is a Superman who had no accessible means of confining someone who straight up said that he will kill all the humans.

    I

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    To give Miller some credit, Carrie Kelley was a pretty fun character who is I believe, the best written female character if not character in general, that he has ever devised. So the later batman years did have some good points to them.

    Ah. Well a substantial plot point in the third movie was that Bane (somehow) broke into the world trade center and killed lots of people and then (somehow) hacked into the world trade center (somehow) and then ‘deleted’ all of Bruce Waynes money and assets, making it show up in all the worlds computers that Bruce Wayne had no assets, money or any property at all to speak of. And that his companies and all holdings were bankrupt ( *fighting to keep from screaming at the broken logic of this* ) The police meanwhile had circled the world trade center but bane escaped, leading to a chase scene in which Bane easily gets away. Thus because of this, hundreds of people in Gotham alone are homeless and protesting over it and Wayne is now penniless and everyone blames him for it because magically all wayne companies went bankrupt and instantly closed down without any other corporation buying them out to take over their assets with nobody in the world thinking this is the tiniest bit strange or unrealistic.

    Thus while the people are wrongfully blaming the rich Wayne, bane goes through the rest of his plans which culminate in sending a broken backed Bruce Wayne to a prison across the world to die while watching on television the situation in Gotham. (loosely based on three different storylines which I personally don’t think mesh well in that time frame) in which Bane announces in a stadium he just destroyed that he destroyed all of the bridges out of the city (ra’shul guul wants his scheme back~) that all of the cities police are currently trapped in the subway, and that one person in the city who totally isn’t him or one of his henchmen has the detonator to a nuke that will blow up the whole city.

    Promising to nuke anyone in the outside world if they interfere, Bane sits back and watches for months as the poor who are the majority and the mostly homeless instantly blame the rich people for their problems and begin hunting them down and begin holding mock trials for the rich folk and force them to walk across the river and drown to death in the hopes that this will somehow stop the nuke from blowing up. (all of which was part of Banes plan)
    In fact, when Batman does return, he coincidentally arrives in time to save Lucius Fox who was walking across the cracking ice (sentenced for being the CEO of Wayne enterprises who cost them their jobs) and Batman quickly serves to show the poor that their persecution of the rich is wrong because he is a rich guy and a superhero meaning that only the rich are in the right and the poor are in the wrong.

    The amusing part of the movie is that months after the city was cut off from the outside world with no government and a lower class who were ruling themselves, the city ran surprisingly well.
    A chunk of the action happens at night showing that power generators and lights still operate in the city (even though nobody from the mainland can get anything into Gotham) The streets are completely clean, with no garbage or even loose paper to be seen (really surprising for a city of that size, meaning they had even more efficient waste disposal procedures than they did before Bane appeared given the amount of garbage that was on the streets some scenes prior.) and the police months later were still in the subways and well fed and healthy meaning that they were given enough resources to be well taken care of, and healthy enough to fight off Banes army of poor people, suggesting that Gotham also lacked a food shortage.
    Accidentally proving that they were better off without the rich when the movie intended the opposite. XD

    The wall street protester thing was even more obvious than the second movies wire tapping quandary subplot that occurred for like fifteen minutes near the end. (A drawn out scene toward the end of the second film where Lucius Fox reveals an invention he made that would allow him to hack all the cities cell phones and use them as sonar to somehow locate the Joker, prompting a long drawn out cut scene in which Fox talks about how he doesn’t think Batman should use this invention that he invented and mentioned to Batman as an option to save the city and then declares he will quit if Batman does use it even if Batman says he is only using it this one time.)

    Ah, I heartily recommend a rewatch, it is quite good, and I can safely say that the first twenty minutes alone easily outpace Avatar in every way.

    One thing I suggest to keep in mind when watching the film though, the Kryptonians with the exception of Clark Kent were all genetically designed too specialize in different things. They are programmed to follow specific tasks and function more like extensions of a big super computer that uses them as tools. So when Zod is saying his purpose is to protect Krypton and now he has nothing, or when Jor’el is talking about how his meaning is to preserve Kryptons legacy, their being quite literal and are incapable of going against their natures. (Kal’El was such a big deal because by being born normally, he is not a part of the system and thus has no limitation of a function, even if this means he lacks the specific genetic breeding that would make him mentally specialized for his specific role in society.)
    Its also why the high council was ignoring the issue of the planet being about to blow up and instead focusing on trying a criminal and having Zod exiled. Because their programming is to do these things and that programming does not involve the destruction of their whole planet.

    I also found the plot hooks littered throughout the movie to be fun.
    Like ‘Oooh~ One of the Kryptonian ships capsules is open~ Did someone survive and leave before Clark arrived? I bet it activated when those soldiers discovered the ship!’
    Or ‘Wait, Zod is a legendary warrior of the planet whose specific duty is to protect Krypton and he is a noted warrior who is honored by everyone. But apparently Kryptonians have never killed one another in recent memory so that means that there are alien invaders out there who are a very real threat to earth’
    or ‘wait, these colony worlds have loads of corpses on them and one guy is speared through the chest. What the heck caused the death of whole worlds?’
    ‘So if the Kryptonians do what they do because they were literally born to do these tasks, does that mean that there is some sort of super computer or Brainiac that was controlling their society?’
    And my favorite ‘wait, that scientist who got sucked into the phantom zone along with the kryptonians…Isn’t he one of Supermans big bads? Will this be relevant later?’

    As for the finale, yes, killing Zod is questionable, but aside from the reasons I named, from a storytelling standpoint I believe they were trying to symbolize Superman cutting ties with his people, choosing humanity over kryptonians. Also as a ‘revenge for killing my father’ sorta thing.
    While it is not a high point for the movie, I just don’t see it as something that diminishes everything that came before it. Just a sour note in an otherwise epic symphony.

    Plus again, if people are fine with Iron man killing people and Captain America killing people (neither of which ever kill people, with in the comics Cap punching out a fellow hero who took a life) why doesn’t Superman get a pass?
    Yes it was a death, yes it was a character killing someone, but it was not necessarily a cynical moment. Especially compared to every other superhero film that has been coming out for the last decade. Heck, Iron Man dropped a nuke on his baddies.

    In the end the movie still felt very hopeful to me and by far the most optimistic I have felt coming out of ANY superhero film to date.

    And…did they say Superman was stronger? O.o as far as I know that wasn’t the case.
    They repeatedly make mention of how the planets atmosphere puts Kryptonians through excruciating pain, and that a young Clark Kent spent years in constant agony trying to adapt to an enviorment that was literally killing him, making his survival a miracle…And that he is now adapted and immune to an environment that hurts all of the other Kryptonians (now making him unable to hand a Kryptonian environment.) Unlike Zod who is literally shaking and screaming about how much it bleeping hurts.

    That aside though, during the fight scene at the end, Zod was clearly shown overpowering Superman at several points and flinging him around like a ragdoll and using the unnatural strength and fighting ability that was coded into his genes to stand up to Supes. Plus, given the multiple times Superman spent in Kryptonian atmospheres in the film which like Kryptonite seemingly weakens and voids the strength he built up until he can get a good dose of sun, im not sure it applies…

    Though I could be totally wrong and someone might have stated such a fact which would give me something to ponder over admittedly.

  • Anonymous

    Now that you mention it, I can see the parallel you refer to regarding Rises. I pretty much turned off my brain pretty early in that movie, and as a result neither took note of what it was saying nor committed most of its plot details to memory. I was pretty much in “big dumb action movie” mode. I definitely noticed how weird it was that Bruce managed to get back to Gotham given the situation, though.

    Outdoing Avatar is no big feat. Avatar was so predictable I ended up amusing myself by occasionally guessing the next line of dialogue and getting it right pretty much every time (not exaggerating; that movie is pretty much written almost entirely in stock lines and cliches, with a layer of blue cats smeared on top). The nicest thing I can say about Avatar is that it’s probably the nicest looking screensaver ever programmed. That script was so generic it could be the sample script that comes free with a “The Bare Basics of Screenwriting” book. I have no problem at all agreeing that Man of Steel was by far superior to Avatar, even factoring in the dumbest moments (Jonathan saying it’s okay to let people die, Jonathan’s death scene where he’s being a complete moron for no apparent reason, and Zod’s death scene), as at least it wasn’t entirely predictable, and it did have an interesting structure and some nice character moments, like Clark discovering he can fly. I probably will rewatch it to see how it holds up on second viewing.

    I just don’t think comparing Superman to Iron man makes much sense, as I’ve never seen Iron Man as a symbol of hope. Frankly, I’ve always seen him as kind of a dick, but then again I’m not too familiar with his history. Most of my experience with Iron Man in comics has been guest appearances and crossovers, and he’s been a complete douchebag every time. Maybe that’s just those writers or where he was at emotionally at the time, but I can’t really compare it to Superman, because Superman represents something kind of specific, something pure and uncorrupted. Iron Man doing something morally questionable doesn’t strike me as quite as much of a violation, maybe because he wasn’t a household name before the movies, or maybe because I read Civil War (which I had mixed feelings about due to being quite literally all over the place) and pretty much thought of Iron Man as a villain (in the vein of Lex Luthor) before the first movie came out. The notion of him taking life is to me like James Bond taking lives. It’s just that kind of movie. Could be it’s a bigger deal to classic Iron Man fans, but I never read Iron Man as a kid. I did, however, read plenty of vintage Superman and Justice League (small town in Sweden, virtually no access to contemporary comics at the time), and I got an image in my head of Superman as the person who – in spite of his physical advantage – would never use said advantage to bully or kill. The guy who, even when it looks like there’s no other way, will always find a better way than to sink to the level of his enemies. The guy who always takes the high road, even when that’s the hardest choice to make and the other choice is so easy. It wasn’t his physical strength that defined him. He defined himself in spite of his physical strength, and his struggle wasn’t about punching hard enough; it was about not punching too hard. So when I see Superman snap a guy’s neck, I’m no longer watching Superman. I’m watching some dude in a Superman costume snap a guy’s neck. It’s not his powers that make him super; it’s the choices he makes. And I feel like that’s something Goyer and Snyder misrepresented, and that moment to me plays like they’re trying to show how badass Superman is for killing his enemy rather than trusting that Superman making the no-kill choice is badass enough, which strikes me as very cynical and not at all compatible with the optimism Superman is supposed to represent. Frankly, I think it would’ve been more powerful and poignant to have Superman destroy the machine and then Zod commit seppuku because his reason to exist is gone and he can’t face the idea of forging his own path. Then there would be a very clear contrast between Superman and Zod, as one chooses the high road and the other can’t deal with the notion of choice. And Zod would still be dead. Everybody wins.

    Oh yes, the environment thing. The yellow sun is part of that, but there are other elements at play as well, as you say. Superman has spent most of his life adapting to the environment, but he’s also been soaking up yellow rays while doing so (which is the primary source of his superpowers, as well as – obviously – Zod’s), making him physically stronger than someone who just got here. Zod’s advantage is in genetics, training and experience, but I’m sure I’ve heard, if not in the movie then from those who made it, that Superman is supposed to be physically a bit stronger than Zod, even with the protective suit, but it more or less evens out when factoring in the other factors. In theory, anyway. No idea how closely it’s adhered to on screen, but from what I understand, that’s the idea.

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    It tends to go unnoticed by some people, but DC generally tries to use themes and morals for their stories and make a point with them. The setback to that is that you will occasionally find idiots who try to forcefeed their own views, using the characters as mouthpieces (Cry for Justice is a glaring example)

    I confess, when I go into things I do it partially just to examine themes and meanings behind things.

    True its no mean feat, and Avatar would have probably been a failure if the art team were not on their AAA game ^^; But as I was watching the beginning of Man of Steel, the part with Krypton I couldn’t stop thinking about how much better it would have been if Avatar was more like it. XD

    Im not comparing Iron man to Superman because of the hope symbiosis, but because Iron man was a very ‘I do not kill’ sorta character, along with Captain and Thor who in thee source material outright avoid it unless their handed to a particularly crummy writer.
    It just annoys me because I followed the silver age, and classic marvel. Both of which had their strong points and had very similar atmospheres, both of which have been darker and darker for it. But while people call out DC for doing these things even if dark elements were present from the start ( Supermans whole planet was destroyed. One of his first stories was outright refusing to give his secret identity to a judge, his interest in standing up for the common man but refusal to let the majority push around the minority.)
    and it annoys me because people seem convinced that Marvel has always been this way when it really hasn’t. That the darker and crueler borderline villain take on Iron Man is what is considered the norm.
    Iron Man wasn’t a symbol of hope, but he was a guy who invented glue guns for his security force so they wouldn’t have to kill trespassers. And a guy who didn’t pocket his technology but in the Marvelverse is the one credited for inventing the pacemaker, using the same technology he uses to keep his own heart beating. It is not world moving, but Iron Man was a hero who made a difference more for the efforts made as Tony Stark than those he made as Iron Man.

    You present a pretty interesting idea as to how the movie could have ended on a better note and with a more emotional ending. I can totally picture Zod doing something like that, and how emotionally impactful it would have been to Superman.

    I…Just can’t find it in me to scold the movie for not thinking of something so brilliant in hindsight.

    Thank you though for presenting an idea that I had not considered which certainly would have made for a more wow worthy climax.

    Huh, interesting…..I might have to do some more research and rewatch the film to see if it was mentioned in a scene I missed…

  • SecretAvenger

    I would go see a Black Widow movie. I would love it if it were along the lines of the movie Salt with Angelina Jolie. But I think that’s a route too dark for Marvel to take. It would be a lot cheaper to make and with a name like Marvel it will no doubt be successful(Though not as successful as the big blockbusters they put out). Personally though, I would love a Secret Avengers movie with Black Widow being the leader. She’s one of the mainstays of the team. Black Widow and Secret Avenger are basically synonymous with each other. So I would love to see her headline her own team that has a lot of females such as Mockingbird, Spiderwoman(ex hydra agent) monica rambeau and even she hulk. Im obviously going for a different feel from the comics. Hopefully they consider this. Captain America The Winter Soldier is basically a Secret Avengers movie if you think about it. But For the MCU, I think an all female avengers team would be cool and different. It’s a win win situation, Black Widow headlines her own team and more female characters!

  • Anonymous

    Actually, Dakota was a imprint of DC, much like Piranha Press and Vertigo are.

  • Nuuni Nuunani

    *looks it up* golly, I hadn’t realized O.o
    Thank you for that revelation

  • Anonymous

    Bite yourself. And also, instead of just whining about TV and movies, became the change you want to see in the world by getting into the industry and becoming a writer, director, or producer.

  • Anonymous

    If you’d like to see more female characters, please remember that you can be the change that you want to be in the world, and that change will only come if you and everybody else here commenting are willing to enter the industry and write, produce, or direct a movie (or write a/the script that will result in said movie with said female character(s) being seen in a prominent role.) Complaining about it in a blog isn’t going to start the process, and scriptwriters/directors will only create a female character if they feel inspired to do so, and not because they are forced to do so by people who aren’t writers.

  • Anonymous

    Yes, because it’s just that easy. Bite yourself, for coming back to a discussion…AFTER TWO MONTHS.

  • Anonymous

    Because Peggy has an established fan base and casted actress?