And since your opinion is the only one that matters, the rest of us will just watch the movies that you want to see.
Again, you’re invoking a false dichotomy with no basis. “You can have one great female superhero movie, or lots of crappy ones.” No, actually, those aren’t the only two choices: we could have lots of great ones. “You can have Carol Danvers Captain Marvel or Kamala Khan Ms. Marvel.” No, actually, those aren’t the only two choices: we could have both.
The fact that the US comic-book-superhero industry was built for (and largely by) male teenagers. Complaining about that is like complaining that most Japanese books feature people from Japan.
Not really. The market for short Italian leads is non-existent nowadays, and with rare exceptions (Pacino and DeNiro) they were all a big joke anyway. But sure, I have so much in common with The Rock, Jason Strachan, Vin Diesel, or the super-charming Jude Law and friends. I can totally see me like them. Yeah, sure.
The passive-aggressiveness here is off the chart. Where did I say that? Where did I ever implied that? Of course what I say is my opinion, I never said nobody else is entitled to an opinion. Projecting much?
But that’s not what we have “in the male world”: we have lots of crap and the occasional gem. Having the gem without the crap is great in my book.
And what I’m telling you is that Carol Danvers is a weak character, in the same way, say, Iron Fist or the Marvel Hercules are weak characters. You can’t make a movie out of every character, male or female that might be; you pick the strong ones. Khan imho is stronger than Danvers. That’s just, like, my opinion, man.
Wow. Impressive.
No, good driving trollies is deciding for everyone what constitutes citizenship and “gendered roles”.
Given we just saw, not two years ago, that Hasbro (who has more metrics than anyone on toys, I’m sure) didn’t bother to make Rey figurines because “girls don’t do sci-fi or superhero stuff”, I think it’s pretty disingenuous to suggest that gender didn’t play a role in why it took so long for this movie to come to theatres.
I don’t know where you’re going with this either. No one claimed this is the first-ever movie featuring a strong woman; just that it’s long, LONG overdue for Hollywood to finally produce a big-budget superhero movie that has a female lead.
As noted several times above, it’s totally bananas that Hollywood saw fit to make nine Batman movies before taking a chance on even one Wonder Woman movie. They even gave HOWARD THE DUCK a shot at his own feature film for Chrissakes.
Hold on. Young Justice was cancelled because Cartoon Network did not own the licensing rights to YJ products. In short, they couldn’t make a dime on the toys, t-shirts, hats, buttons, etc. At that time every property that CN began to distribute on its network were things they signed the licensing rights to.
It had nothing to do with gender demographics whatsoever…it was about their own profits.
Two things here…
It’s clearly not a family movie, my kids are way too small (7 and 5). I barely ever get to cinemas these days. I still want to see it though.
My argument btw is not about the movie, but rather the commentariat surrounding it.
You have not watched it but have made the assumption it is not ok for your children to see it? How does that work again?
What was the last 5 movies you saw in the theater and how far out from their release dates were those viewings?
They did take a chance on Catwoman though. And that other one with Pam Anderson.
From the article I linked to
DINI: “That’s the thing, you know I hate being Mr. Sour Grapes here, but I’ll just lay it on the line: that’s the thing that got us cancelled on Tower Prep, honest-to-God was, like, ‘we need boys, but we need girls right there, right one step behind the boys’—this is the network talking—‘one step behind the boys, not as smart as the boys, not as interesting as the boys, but right there.’ And then we began writing stories that got into the two girls’ back stories, and they were really interesting. And suddenly we had families and girls watching, and girls really became a big part of our audience, in sort of like they picked up that Harry Potter type of serialized way, which is what The Batman and [indistinct]'s really gonna kill. But, the Cartoon Network was saying, 'F*, no, we want the boys’ action**, it’s boys’ action, this goofy boy humor we’ve gotta get that in there. And we can’t—’ and I’d say, but look at the numbers, we’ve got parents watching, with the families, and then when you break it down—‘Yeah, but the—so many—we’ve got too many girls. We need more boys.’”
SMITH: “That’s heart-breaking.”
DINI: "And then that’s why they cancelled us, and they put on a show called Level Up, which is, you know, goofy nerds fighting CG monsters. It’s like, ‘We don’t want the girls because the girls won’t buy toys.’ We had a whole… we had a whole, a merchandise line for Tower Prep that they scanned before it ever got off the launching pad, because it’s like, ‘Boys, boys, boys. Boys buy the little spinny tops, they but the action figures, girls buy princesses, we’re not selling princesses.’"*
Yes. This is missing the added point that I made. They want to sell toys and make money on it. They were not in control of the licensing on anything young justice. Every dime went to warner brothers and dc.
Cartoon Network is a subsidiary of Warner Brothers through Turner Broadcast System.
You are barking up the wrong tree here.
No I am not. I distinctly recall the article in which it was stated it was cancelled due to licensing of peripheral assets and how CN couldn’t do it and couldn’t make money on it. As it was another group that owned it. I cannot find the article that had the info.
But thats fine. Believe as you wish. It doesn’t change a single thing.
Citation required dude.
You can’t be all “fine, believe as you wish” when other people are backing their stuff up with links.
Find the article, show us!
amazing how in another thread I was slammed that “this is a forum, not a court of law…evidence is not required.” Yet here I am being told to provide the cited article link (to which I already admitted I can’t find it, and honestly don’t want to spend the time to really search for it that extensively).
Amazing to me in that I agree with @Mangochin 's assertion; just not that it specifically applies to that one tv show example. Which is why I said it doesn’t change anything.
so because discrimiation exists, it should continue, as you’ve always understood it as a “boys club” us bitchy feminists should get bent? let me disabuse you of the spurious notion that it’s always been a boys club. From the start WW, as one example, had a pretty strong set of girls and women reading it. And from the beginning of comics as a whole, there were indeed plenty of them aimed at young women. Just because boys didn’t read them, doesn’t mean that they do not exist.
Except of course for the many many many animes and mangas NOT set in Japan. Or when they are made into American films, then we can just put white people in them, because who cares? Those Asian Americans shouldn’t get pissed if hollywood continues to white wash films.
You started this conversation complaining about “feminist chest thumping” and implying that you’d like to see us shut up. [quote=“toyg, post:42, topic:103354”]
Having the gem without the crap is great in my book.
[/quote]
Thanks for letting us know about issues that matter to us and how much you value women’s rights, including positive representations of women in entertainment. Duly noted.
Catwoman is hardly a top-tier Golden Age superhero like Wonder Woman though. Wonder Woman is arguably one of the “big three” in DC’s lineup alongside Superman and Batman (sorry, Green Lantern fans). Meanwhile Catwoman is a secondary villain/antihero who usually acts as a supporting character in Batman stories, and from what I’ve heard the Halle Berry film adaptation barely even referenced the source material.
I wouldn’t even say arguable. She was one of the big 3. Without her, Superman, and Batman there would be no DC now. it would have gone the way of probably a million other comic producers, especially after the emergence of the comics code in the 50s. Catwoman (which there have been several wonder iterations of, although sadly not the Halle Berry version - thinking more the 60s TV show and Eartha Kitt, mainly) was originally a secondary character within the Batman stories. Wonder Woman was always a peer.
You heard correctly.
The Halle Berry movie had little to do with the actual character of Catwoman at all. It was terrible, and not because it starred a woman, it stunk all on its own.
