The problem was that Elektra, Catwoman, etc. weren’t very good movies.
I remember the old 80’s/90’s Captain America and Punisher movies. They made everyone think that superhero movies just weren’t where the audience was. But the reality was that they just weren’t very well made.
i wonder what other genre of movies died because they were similarly not well made.
Sword and sorcery - right up until LotR.
Sword and sandals … right up until Gladiator.
Westerns … right up until Silverado.
The post he took exception to was also written at 3:27am (my time). I was either drunk or knackered. Or both.
It was still an embarrassingly shit post by him though on so many different levels. From the so thinly veiled prejudice through the inability to recognise that not everyone else shares his views to ending up not realising that the rest of the world doesn’t give two shits about it. Hell, if anything we’d welcome you having a female President, that way you’ll be joining the rest of the western world, where many countries have already had female leaders.
Your post is filled with unwarranted assumptions, amanset. Perhaps it would be useful to you to actually read (sober) the post of mine which set you off. You might find that it doesn’t say what you appear to assume it says.
Personally, I agree that it’s time the USA joined the civilized world in many ways, including ceasing to exclude females from higher office. (And I say that as a proud American.) We have problems. We can’t afford to bar half the population from making a contribution to solving those problems.
Getting back to the Comics/movies question, though: It’s true that a female comics superhero has yet to headline a “tentpole” (successful big-budget) movie. The same is true, however, for non-white male comics superheroes.
So, why is that?
(And it’s NOT because white males are the Majority in the USA…non-Hispanic white males are fewer than 30% of the total US population (using 2010 Census figures). If you restrict it to a frequently-targeted group such as ‘18 to 34’, the proportion is even smaller. Definitely a minority group!)
Blade did $131 million on a $45 million budget, and thus begat Blade II grossing $155 million on a $55 million budget, which is why Blade: Trinity got the green light and, okay, got only $128 million on a $65 million budget, but, eh, could’ve been worse.
Well figure that Chrstopher Nolan, Zach Snyder, Bryan Singer, and Sam Raimi are all people that can make A-level superhero movies. While a bit subjective, between them they’ve made a total of 13 superhero movies but only 7 good ones. So the odds of even a good director, who can work with this sort of material, producing something good are still only 50%. Then you figure that something like 75% of all superheroes are men (male vs female), then even if we randomly generate superhero movies with the best directors, there’s only a 1 in 8 chance of a hit. So far, there haven’t been 8 movies with leading women, let-alone by the best directors.
The wait could be long.
I don’t think the studios make the distinctions we often do between comics, genre literature and video games. As far as they’re concerned, there have been several successful franchises with woman leads that nebulously fall under the general heading of “Geek Fodder” (Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, etc)- they’re not going to notice the lack in one segment of that market.
That’s true. But on poor Blade’s shoulders rests the entire ‘non*-white-male successful comics-based movie*’ phenomenon.
This makes me wonder if the supernatural must be involved in some way to ensure success for non-white and/or non-male “superhero” (using it loosely) fare. ‘Supergirl no, Selene yes’ style of thing. Hmmn.
Seems like a fair summing up to me. The willingness of big studios to finance multi-million-dollar movies is fairly limited, and of a follow-the-leader variety. If male superheroes have succeeded in the past, male superhero stories are the likeliest to be funded.
The Supergirl movie had her facing Faye Dunaway as a sorceress, basically. It was terrible. So, no.
Good point (it’s been many years since I saw that movie, and I’d forgotten). Of course the dividing line between “supernatural” and “alien technology” is pretty fuzzy in most comics or game-based stories, to begin with.
I still think the distinction between being a Dedicated Female Fighter Against Evil, versus being an Intrepid Female Survivor Dealing With Adversity, is important in assessing the likely box office success of a female-headlined movie. At least the track record of the latter (the Resident Evil and Underworld franchises; arguably the Alien movies and maybe the Tomb Raider franchise) is much better than the track record of the former (1984’s Supergirl, 2004’s Catwoman, 2005’s Elektra). Dedicated Female Fighters-Against-Evil have done well at the box office only in supporting roles (X-Men; Avengers).
I’m definitely NOT saying that this is the way it “should” be; just that this seems to be the way things stand now. (This is what makes me pessimistic about any green-lighting for a big-budget Wonder Woman movie, for instance.)
There are some themes that the public loves, and other themes that the public is less enthusiastic about. I can’t help suspecting that ‘Woman in jeopardy from evildoers’ is popular in a way that 'Woman lays down justice for evildoers’ isn’t–that may be a quirk of our culture. (Not that such things are written in stone. Things can change.)
Lara Croft might not be a crusader against evil, but nor is she a survivor dealing with adversity that is dealt to her. All the situations she finds herself in, she willingly put herself into.
And Ellen Ripley might be just a survivor in Alien, but in the sequel she’s deliberately going into a mess of xenomorphs, with both eyes open.
Do we get to count Antonio Banderas playing Zorro?
And while Will Smith’s blockbuster superhero outing as Hancock doesn’t count the way you’re phrasing it, he kinda sorta got there as Agent K of the Men In Black: the guy’s leading-man role as either led to a $624-million-a-pop gross each time.
it is going to be neither Marvel nor DC - - YouTube
but it will be Scarlett Johansson. a brand new superhero is as good as any, though it likely means it won’t turn into a franchise. this time, she won’t be hobbled by a puny pistol.
Well, that looks fucking awesome, and I had no idea it was even in development…
…but I’d hesitate to call it a “superhero” movie. More like action SF.
well, it does have the whole cliched superhero origin… all it will need if it is a box-office hit is a super villain for the sequel.
I don’t know - it’s more like Limitless or the Bourne Legacy - it doesn’t hit all the high notes of a superhero film - no costumes, aliases, world-saving. Hell, if it is a super- movie, she’s no hero - i mean, she flat-out blows away that one cabbie for no good reason other than pour encourager les autres.
How is she not a superhero? She’s clearly got super powers.
She’s also clearly not a hero.