BLACK WIDOW: THE MOVIE (TBD) 4 4

[drotto]

3 hours ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Of course I disagree. Natasha, particularly before Civil War, didn’t warrant her own movie. As a business move for the studio, she was a boring character with no super power. Before Civil War, Marvel was still trying to prove itself and needed flashier movies to pull in general audiences. We just saw Black Widow in Winter Soldier. A redundant Black Widow movie would have only served to drag the momentum of the MCU which was still revving up. Flashier more fantastic movies like GOTG or Ant-Man were needed to expand the universe.

Also, after Winter Soldier, Natasha was still just a supporting player like Hawkeye. We knew everything we needed to know about her. No reason to dig further. It wasn’t until Endgame that Natasha was finally elevated to more A status within the story as we saw her as the Avengers leader and she finally got to be an emotional lead in a major scene when she sacrifices herself. Now, she is deserving of her own movie. 
Add the story hole of what happened to her after she violated the Sokovia Accords by helping spring Cap and Bucky at the airport and we now have an organic reason to have a Black Widow movie, in addition to introducing a new Black Widow and other building blocks for the MCU’s future.

I’d think it’s quite an honor for Natasha to have her solo film be the film that kicks off the theatrical part of the MCU’s Phase Four. It must be an important film.

Then why have fans been asking for her to have a solo film for at least 5 years? Why have fans said that she should have had a film before Wonder Woman, likely in phase 2?

 

This argument ignors that, despite what Marvel did, there was fan interest.  Fans did not classify her as a B lister, they considered her top teir. The characters that were top characters were that because Marvel invested time into giving them solo films.  There were multiple points in the timeline where her movie would have been logical.  Furthermore, the movie they decided to make could have been released at any time and made sense.

 

Marvel dropped the ball on Black Widow. For whatever reason the decided not to push her earlier, when it would have made perfect sense, and made her death more meaningful. 

Edited March 24, 2021 by drotto

[@therealsilvermane]

42 minutes ago, drotto said:

Then why have fans been asking for her to have a solo film for at least 5 years? Why have fans said that she should have had a film before Wonder Woman, likely in phase 2?

 

This argument ignors that, despite what Marvel did, there was fan interest.  Fans did not classify her as a B lister, they considered her top teir. The characters that were top characters were that because Marvel invested time into giving them solo films.  There were multiple points where her movie would be logical.

I guess some fans were asking for it, but there wasn't a legion of fans trolling Kevin Feige's phone line and mail box asking for it. Of course, they weren't clamoring for Guardians of the Galaxy, either. Again, it goes back to the big picture of the MCU story not requiring there to be a Widow film, as we just saw her featured extensively as a supporting player to Captain America in Winter Soldier.

Black Widow wasn't considered part of the Big Three. Neither was Hawkeye. They were supporting players in the Avengers story. The spotlight was for Thor, Iron Man, Cap, and a little Hulk. Either way, there was no room for a Black Widow movie, another would-be political thriller, between Winter Soldier and Civil War. The MCU needed to be a little of everything, like political thriller or comedy or space adventure etc. Yet another political thriller would have thrown off the balance of the MCU. Trust me.

Black Widow fans  pushing for her movie maybe also forget that in the comics, Natasha never had her own continuous series. Like Hawkeye, she'd guest star a lot, was featured solo briefly next to Inhumans stories back in Amazing Adventures, and had a few mini-series.

Edited March 24, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[@therealsilvermane]

44 minutes ago, drotto said:

There were multiple points where her movie would be logical.

You could argue that there should have been a Black Widow movie as part of Phase One, right alongside Captain America, Thor, Hulk, and Iron Man, but do you also see how that wouldn't have worked? Those four legacy characters all had strong origin stories and successful long running series. To throw Black Widow in there, who doesn't really have a well known origin or never had a long continuous narrative to adapt into a movie, it wouldn't have worked and possibly could have handicapped the MCU at its outset. Plus, her career as a hero, especially as presented in the MCU, was a little shaky when we first met her. She was more SHIELD operative/spy than traditional super-hero.

I've already argued why Black Widow can't have been between Winter Soldier and Civil War. To put her movie right after Civil War would have been kind of the same problem. If you do a Black Widow movie, by necessity, it's going to be a political spy thriller, like Winter Soldier and Civil War to a degree. Too much of the same. Instead, we got other movies that further expanded the Marvel universe from Wakanda to the Multiverse to outer space, movies necessary to prepare us for Infinity War and Endgame. As it was, a Black Widow movie after Civil War would have been just another political spy thriller featuring a character whose role in the Avengers was still on the sidelines, along with Hawkeye and Falcon, and not in the spotlight.

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Sure, Natasha had cool fight scenes in Winter Soldier, it was a well done action movie. Everybody was cool in it, even that Sharon Carter lady. But you still couldn't make a solo movie out of the Black Widow character then. Characters that got solo films were those with fantastic special effects powers that could excite audiences. Black Widow is just a spy who can fight. That's what I mean by boring. No special effects powers which is what solo MCU films were reserved for back then. And again, to make another political spy thriller on the heels of the political spy thriller that was Winter Soldier would have been really really redundant and a bad business move.

The team-up format that all MCU films seem to be taking now is also a good approach to Black Widow. In her solo film, she gets Iron Maiden, Red Guardian, and Black Widow 2.0 to help her make her movie more fun.

I don't think the MCU gets everything right, but you can't argue they've gotten it mostly right. There's a reason Marvel Studios is sitting on top of the movie world.

I actually do find fault in some MCU flicks. Ironically, the ones I find most fault in are the Russo Bros movies. Well done action films in the style of Katherine Bigelow for sure, but from Winter Soldier to Infinity War I'd clench my teeth sometimes at all the plot holes or logic holes throughout their movies. Over the years, I've gotten over it and just chalk it up to a comic book film and try to be thankful the rest of it is so good. Again ironically, the one MCU film of theirs where I found hardly any plot holes but that should have been full of them because it's a time travel movie is Endgame.

Brevity is not your friend.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is the best MCU movie to date. Everything worked in that film. Casting, intense and engaging story, cinematography that pulled you into the action, characters that made the story that much more of a thrill die, and a soundtrack that only enhanced everything from beginning to end. Even the credits became part of of the story the way it effectively used animation to recap the story.

Convincing yourself of a narrative because you accept everything the MCU releases as 'just perfectly executed and timed' only reveals you ignore the real details.

[@therealsilvermane]

6 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Convincing yourself of a narrative because you accept everything the MCU releases as 'just perfectly executed and timed' only reveals you ignore the real details.

Did I say "perfectly executed"? I was only debating your previous statement that Black Widow should have been released after Winter Soldier as I think that would have been horrible timing for the movie. It would have served no purpose as we just saw her be Cap's partner for the entirety of Winter Soldier. I don't know what perfect timing for the movie is, but releasing it on the heels of Endgame and as the kickoff to Phase Four (especially since it introduces her replacement) is perfectly FINE timing.

Endgame gave fans a reason to finally want to know more about her. Finally she got to be a hero on her own terms instead of support for one of the big guys.

[Bosco685]

13 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Did I say "perfectly executed"? I was only debating your previous statement that Black Widow should have been released after Winter Soldier as I think that would have been horrible timing for the movie. It would have served no purpose as we just saw her be Cap's partner for the entirety of Winter Soldier. I don't know what perfect timing for the movie is, but releasing it on the heels of Endgame and as the kickoff to Phase Four (especially since it introduces her replacement) is perfectly FINE timing.

Endgame gave fans a reason to finally want to know more about her. Finally she got to be a hero on her own terms instead of support for one of the big guys.

Endgame gave fans a reason? Not the other 11 movies she appeared? Again, you are convincing yourself of an opinion no matter what reality is presented.

[drotto]

MCU fans would not have be receptive to an interesting, intelligent, sexy, female spy leading a movie because it happened around the same time as two other espionage style MCU films? 

 

Just trying to understand the logic going on there. The best slotting may have been to do a Black Widow movie where the Captian Marvel movie was.  She was far more connected and important to the MCU at that point. Despite some hints at the early formation of the Avengers that movie had no connections to Endgame, and CM role in in that movie was under 15 minutes and felt tacked on in many respects.  Carol could easily have been moved to phase 4, and her few parts in Endgame reworked.

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by drotto

[Bosco685]

6 minutes ago, drotto said:

MCU fans would not have be receptive to an interesting, intelligent, sexy, female spy leading a movie because it happened around the same time as two other espionage style MCU films? 

 

Just trying to understand the logic going on there. The best slotting may have been to do a Black Widow movie where the Captian Marvel movie was.  She was far more connected and important to the MCU at that point.

 

[Gatsby77]

I think I'm with Silvermane here.

First, Black Widow was always d-list in the comics - yes, Amazing Adventures and co-starring with Daredevil for a bit in the '70s...but in the comics she's not even on the level of Hawkeye, who led the West Coast Avengers for most of that title's 8-year run.

And on a movie adaptation - what - so we get another female Bourne clone film, a la...Salt / Atomic Blonde / Red Sparrow?

Of those, the best film was Salt by a long shot, and it came out years earlier.

Best case scenario - you cast her a la Ilsa Faust (Mission Impossible 6 and 7) but most of what makes that character work is her supporting status, coupled with her double/triple agent ambiguity. And I don't think the world's clamoring for an Ilsa Faust MI-6 operative-gone-rogue solo spin-off film, despite Rebecca Ferguson's amazing portrayal.

I honestly think both Atomic Blonde and Red Sparrow put the kibosh on our seeing a Black Widow film earlier...

[drotto]

Just now, Gatsby77 said:

I think I'm with Silvermane here.

First, Black Widow was always d-list in the comics - yes, Amazing Adventures and co-starring with Daredevil for a bit in the '70s...but in the comics she's not even on the level of Hawkeye, who led the West Coast Avengers for most of that title's 8-year run.

And on a movie adaptation - what - so we get another female Bourne clone film, a la...Salt / Atomic Blonde / Red Sparrow?

Of those, the best film was Salt by a long shot, and it came out years earlier.

Best case scenario - you cast her a la Ilsa Faust (Mission Impossible 6 and 7) but most of what makes that character work is her supporting status, coupled with her double/triple agent ambiguity. And I don't think the world's clamoring for an Ilsa Faust MI-6 operative-gone-rogue solo spin-off film, despite Rebecca Ferguson's amazing portrayal.

I honestly think both Atomic Blonde and Red Sparrow put the kibosh on our seeing a Black Widow film earlier...

Again, not if you put the Black Widow movie right after Iron Man 2.  People were excited to see her in that film, and an espionage MCU film would have slotted in nicely there also.  Then she would have beaten many of those films to the screen.  Besides, a well done film does not need to worry about other similar films, as long as it does it better.

 

As for using D list characters.  The MCU is built on C and D list characters.  When the MCU started Spider-Man, the X-Men, Fantastic Four, and Wolverine were far far bigger in the comic world.  Marvel did not have the movie rights so it was forced to make do with what they had the rights to. The sold off the rights to all the biggest characters years earlier when they needed the cash. They did a great job with it.  The MCU big three are only A list now, not when they started. 

[Bosco685]

3 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

I think I'm with Silvermane here.

First, Black Widow was always d-list in the comics - yes, Amazing Adventures and co-starring with Daredevil for a bit in the '70s...but in the comics she's not even on the level of Hawkeye, who led the West Coast Avengers for most of that title's 8-year run.

And on a movie adaptation - what - so we get another female Bourne clone film, a la...Salt / Atomic Blonde / Red Sparrow?

Of those, the best film was Salt by a long shot, and it came out years earlier.

Best case scenario - you cast her a la Ilsa Faust (Mission Impossible 6 and 7) but most of what makes that character work is her supporting status, coupled with her double/triple agent ambiguity. And I don't think the world's clamoring for an Ilsa Faust MI-6 operative-gone-rogue solo spin-off film, despite Rebecca Ferguson's amazing portrayal.

I honestly think both Atomic Blonde and Red Sparrow put the kibosh on our seeing a Black Widow film earlier...

So the Black Widow character required 8 films to ease MCU fans and the general audience before her own movie but Ant-Man and Doctor Strange just went straight to their own solo films?

Definitely makes sense. These females require more time to ease into an action film. It's good for them and the audience to back into this adventure slowly.

[@therealsilvermane]

36 minutes ago, drotto said:

MCU fans would not have be receptive to an interesting, intelligent, sexy, female spy leading a movie because it happened around the same time as two other espionage style MCU films? 

 

Just trying to understand the logic going on there. The best slotting may have been to do a Black Widow movie where the Captian Marvel movie was.  She was far more connected and important to the MCU at that point. Despite some hints at the early formation of the Avengers that movie had no connections to Endgame, and CM role in in that movie was under 15 minutes and felt tacked on in many respects.  Carol could easily have been moved to phase 4, and her few parts in Endgame reworked.

 

The logic is that the MCU isn't a political spy thriller franchise. It covers a lot of territory. Winter Soldier covered that for the few years around it, which is why Black WIdow was such a huge part of the movie. Again, I say, a Black Widow movie on the heels of that would have been redundant.

Sure, Black Widow could have replaced Captain Marvel between Infinity War and Endgame. But why? So we could see Natasha's miserable life alone after the Decimation? What story are you looking for there? And showing the post-Civil War Black Widow movie we're about to see between those two movies would have been weird and questionable. Again, why?

With Captain Marvel, we were introduced to her as a logo and a cry for help at the end of Infinity War. I know you don't like Captain Marvel, but the rest of us needed to know who this MCU Captain Marvel character was before we saw her in action in Endgame, otherwise she would have been a distraction as we wonder what her powers are. Plus, Carol Danvers is linked to an Infinity Stone. And though she did have a limited presence in Endgame, as the spotlight and big sacrifice were reserved for Black Widow and Tony Stark, she did save Tony Stark in space and prevent Thanos from snapping again until Stark saved the day. Plus, her movie helped set up events for Phase Four and beyond, just like Ant-Man and Wasp, Black Panther, and Dr Strange did. It's all relevant. Trust in Captain Marvel. Just like I trust that Kevin Feige knows what he's doing by making Black Widow the movie that kicks off Phase Four, even though her character met an untimely death in Endgame.

Edited March 24, 2021 by @therealsilvermane

[Gatsby77]

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

So the Black Widow character required 8 films to ease MCU fans and the general audience before her own movie but Ant-Man and Doctor Strange just went straight to their own solo films?

Definitely makes sense. These females require more time to ease into an action film. It's good for them and the audience to back into this adventure slowly.

It's not sexism - it's that Ant-Man/Giant Man and Dr. Strange have *always* been more popular / important comic book characters.

Ant-Man/Giant Man not only had a long run in Tales to Astonish years before Natasha graduated to co-starring in Daredevil's book, but was also a core member of the Silver Age Avengers.

And let's play a game: how many solo Doctor Strange issues have there been? Now, how many solo Black Widow issues have there been?

[@therealsilvermane]

12 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

So the Black Widow character required 8 films to ease MCU fans and the general audience before her own movie but Ant-Man and Doctor Strange just went straight to their own solo films?

Because of special effects and a very established story. There's a ready made movie with Ant-Man and Dr Strange. Black Widow has been a guest star or a teammate all her life in the comics.

[Bosco685]

2 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

It's not sexism - it's that Ant-Man/Giant Man and Dr. Strange have *always* been more popular / important comic book characters.

Ant-Man/Giant Man not only had a long run in Tales to Astonish years before Natasha graduated to co-starring in Daredevil's book, but was also a core member of the Silver Age Avengers.

And let's play a game: how many solo Doctor Strange issues have there been? Now, how many solo Black Widow issues have there been?

 

1 minute ago, @therealsilvermane said:

Because of special effects and a very established story. There's a ready made movie with Ant-Man and Dr Strange. Black Widow has been a guest star or a teammate all her life in the comics.

The rationale you use to justify this stance with one of the key female MCU actresses. Yet if another studio did this one of you would be screaming 'misogynist' until your lungs blew out.

So because of comic book popularity (I thought the MCU doesn't worry about comic books as a decision point because it has the pulse of the general audience?) that is why the solo film of a female character happens after 8 appearances?

Come on now. You are talking yourselves into a corner. With logic that in any other conversation you would be saying something entirely different.

[drotto]

As far as the general public goes, none of the MCU characters were widely know.   People know Batman, Superman, WW, Spider-Man, at that point maybe the X-Men, and the FF.  The MCU made all of the other character big, their comic popularity is irrelevant. So Feige had cart blanch to use any of these characters as he saw fit, and his decisions led the their general popularity.  The comic fans like us are not really that important. 

 

I also still believe the Russo Brothers really had little interest in CM, but Marvel was making her important to phase 4 so they forced them to use her. They made her a post credit scene in IW, and gave her maybe 15 minutes of screen time in Endgame. She is irrelevant to 95% of the story, and a plot device when she is there.  To me it felt like they went out of their way to minimized her.

[@therealsilvermane]

 

8 minutes ago, drotto said:

I also still believe the Russo Brothers really had little interest in CM, but Marvel was making her important to phase 4 so they forced them to use her. They made her a post credit scene in IW, and gave her maybe 15 minutes of screen time in Endgame. She is irrelevant to 95% of the story, and a plot device when she is there.  To me it felt like they went out of their way to minimized her.

I also heard the Russo Bros were forced at gunpoint by Victoria Alonso to include that A-Force tribute to Marvel women heroes during the big battle and Feige put Joe Russo in an arm bar until he made his cameo character in therapy gay.

No I didn't.

Well, MCU directors have to follow a certain storyline with these films. They can't just do what they want with these characters. That's why the original Ant-Man director left Ant-Man. That's the way Marvel has always worked. The continuity and integrity of the characters comes first. Maybe the Infinity War writers wanted to use Annihilus and Galactus and Adam Warlock and Mephisto. But they didn't. And what we got worked to the tune of billions and billions of dollars and global fan adoration.

[Bosco685]

3 minutes ago, @therealsilvermane said:

 

I also heard the Russo Bros were forced at gunpoint by Victoria Alonso to include that A-Force tribute to Marvel women heroes during the big battle and Feige put Joe Russo in an arm bar until he made his cameo character in therapy gay.

No I didn't.

Well, MCU directors have to follow a certain storyline with these films. They can't just do what they want with these characters. That's why the original Ant-Man director left Ant-Man. That's the way Marvel has always worked. The continuity and integrity of the characters comes first. Maybe the Infinity War writers wanted to use Annihilus and Galactus and Adam Warlock and Mephisto. But they didn't. And what we got worked to the tune of billions and billions of dollars and global fan adoration.

No he didn't. That was the MCC before Feige wisely distanced himself from their involvement going forward with any MCU productions. They even caused Joss Whedon to have a nervous breakdown over the MCC constantly changing his -script that at the end of Age of Ultron he said he would never do another Marvel movie again (but then changed his mind later and recanted that statement).

[Gatsby77]

31 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

 

The rationale you use to justify this stance with one of the key female MCU actresses. Yet if another studio did this one of you would be screaming 'misogynist' until your lungs blew out.

So because of comic book popularity (I thought the MCU doesn't worry about comic books as a decision point because it has the pulse of the general audience?) that is why the solo film of a female character happens after 8 appearances?

Come on now. You are talking yourselves into a corner. With logic that in any other conversation you would be saying something entirely different.

Absolutely not.

As a character, Black Widow didn't need a solo film. Especially given her comics history on the D-list.

I'd make the same argument against a solo DC Power Girl or Starfire film from DC. Starfire, btw, is a decent analog - about as classically important to DC comics as Black Widow was to Marvel.

And re. DC - that they at one point discussing a Cyborg solo film release before a solo Flash film release was bananas.

[Bosco685]

1 minute ago, Gatsby77 said:

Absolutely not.

As a character, Black Widow didn't need a solo film. Especially given her comics history on the D-list.

I'd make the same argument against a solo DC Power Girl or Starfire film from DC. Starfire, btw, is a decent analog - about as classically important to DC comics as Black Widow was to Marvel.

And re. DC - that they at one point discussing a Cyborg solo film release before a solo Flash film release was bananas.

Comic book popularity has nothing to do with MCU character selection. Or did you think all that money spent was on comic book fans only?

That would go totally against your entire 'A-List', 'B-List, 'whatever list criteria I am going with for today'.